THIS book is an attempt to treat the life of James the Lord's brother with the fulness and thoroughness which its importance demands, and thus to make a contribution to the settlement of some of the most difficult problems belonging to the history of the primitive Church. I do not know any work which covers the same ground.

It will be seen that I am convinced of the genuineness of the Epistle of James, and of the trustworthiness of the notices concerning him which occur in the Acts, and that I regard these as substantially the only true sources for his opinions and career. In many of the ablest works on the apostolic age, whether in our own or in other languages, the James delineated is the James of legend and romance rather than the James of history; and hence the James drawn in these pages, who is neither a Nazirite nor an ascetic, will wear an unfamiliar aspect to many. But I can form no conception of a James who is at once the James of the Epistle and the Acts and the James of Hegesippus.

The chapter on the Congress at Jerusalem is that which has cost me most pains. The subject has been Page viii before my mind more or less for thirty years, and I am not aware of any treatise which solves all the difficulties connected with it. Nor do I regard my own account as final. But I have tried to look at the actors in that Assembly as I would look at ecclesiastical statesmen in the same position to-day. It is to me simply inconceivable that men of the capacity and judgment of Peter, James, and John on the one hand, and of Paul and Barnabas on the other, should have failed to frame a measure adapted to the case of the Church of Antioch in which the question of the necessity of circumcision was first raised. Yet many scholars of note, especially on the Continent, assert that the decision of the Congress had no reference whatsoever to the case of the Church of Antioch. Surely it is the duty of any historical criticism worthy of the name to give the leaders of the Christian Church at least some credit for the possession of ordinary foresight and wisdom.

The conclusion reached in these pages, that the Christianity of James was in essence identical with that of Paul, and that the relations between these great leaders were frank and cordial, will hardly be disputed by anyone who duly appreciates the contents of the Epistle. That there were vital differences of conviction between James and Paul, is a dream of the historical imagination. At the same time, each had his own characteristic modes of thought and language, and neither can be measured by the thoughts or language of the other. Page ix It is a pleasure to confess my obligations to the writers who have preceded me in the treatment of one branch or another of my subject. My chief aim has been to understand the authorities and their significance, and so to reconstruct the world of thought and action in which James moved; and with this end in view I have examined them again and again, and have tested my results by those of others. I have sought help from every available quarter, and have learned much from authors whose view of the apostolic age seems to me defective and misleading, like Weizsäcker, Harnack, Holtzmann, and McGiffert (to name later scholars only), as well as from those whose opinions stand nearer to my own, as Lightfoot, Farrar, Hort, Zahn, Ramsay, and Bartlet. The commentaries of Beyschlag and Mayor have proved of the highest utility. From the nature of the case it is my dissent from, rather than my agreement with, the conclusions of other writers which appears as a rule when names are mentioned. But this dissent must not be regarded as indicating other than the utmost respect for the powers and achievements of many of those whose views I contest. To refer to Lightfoot and Hort only. I am persuaded that Lightfoot has misjudged the evidence of the New Testament and of the earliest Christian tradition on the question of the Lord's brethren, and I cannot follow Hort in believing that James was received into the number of the Twelve, or that his Epistle is later than those of Paul dealing with the question of justification. But I do Page x not therefore hesitate to say that nowhere will the student of the apostolic and sub-apostolic age find wiser or surer guidance than in the writings of these eminent scholars.

I desire to thank my colleague, Mr. J. S. Will, B.A., for his kindness in reading the proofs and preparing the excellent index.

THESE pages relate the life of James the brother of our Lord. The phrase " brother of the Lord " is used by St. Paul (Gal 1'9), and was probably the designation by which James was best known. The first question connected with his life is to ascertain the force of this phrase. Is the expression to be accepted in its obvious sense? When James is called the brother of the Lord, is it meant that he was our Lord's full brother? Or, on the other hand, may it only affirm that he was a step-brother or merely a cousin? These three views, to say nothing of various modifications and combinations of them, have commanded wide support throughout the Church, and therefore deserve to be carefully examined.

To an ordinary reader of the Gospels our Lord's brothers seem to be children of Joseph and Mary born after Himself. This is the first impression left by a study of the passages concerned, and it is confirmed Page 2 by every fresh investigation. No other explanation is so natural, so obvious, or so evidently required by the statements of the Gospels.

The language of the Gospels regarding the birth of our Lord suggests and almost requires the conclusion that Mary bore children to Joseph after our Lord's birth. It is stated in Matthew's Gospel (125) that " Joseph took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth a son." This expression implies that Joseph and Mary lived together as husband and wife, and consequently that those who are described as our Lord's brothers were really such. An ordinary reader puts no other interpretation on the passage; and certainly the last idea that would occur to him is that Joseph and Mary lived together as if unmarried. Had the Evangelist intended to say this, why did he use words that convey exactly the opposite impression? A writer wishing merely to affirm that our Lord was supernaturally born (Lightfoot, Galatians, 263) would have expressed himself very differently. He would have carefully avoided the use of language which plainly implies what on this view he did not believe, and consequently could not have meant to say.

Again, our Lord is described (Lk 27) as Mary's firstborn son. When the Gospel of Luke was written, it was well known whether Mary had other sons or not. The author of the Gospel, had he been aware that our Lord was her only son, could hardly have described Him as firstborn. As the phrase stands, it Page 3 evidently suggests that Mary had other children besides our Lord. It is true that ' firstborn ' taken by itself does not imply the birth of other children; but Luke when he wrote knew whether other children were subsequently borne by Mary or not, and, had he believed that she had had no child except our Lord, he would almost certainly have used the unambiguous term ' only begotten,' a term with which he was familiar. It is not satisfactory to say (Lightfoot, Galatians, 263) that the prominent idea conveyed by the term " firstborn " to a Jew is not the birth of other children, but the special consecration of the first; for a notion of this kind is foreign to a plain historical statement like that of Luke.

Once more, the language of the inhabitants of Nazareth (Mt 1354-56) is almost inexplicable on any other supposition. Here our Lord is described as the carpenter's son. His mother's name is mentioned, His brothers' names are given, His sisters also are referred to. Is it not self-evident that to the citizens of Nazareth Joseph was our Lord's father, Mary His mother, and His brothers and sisters the children of Joseph and Mary?

Such, then, is the direct Scripture evidence implying that children were born to Joseph and Mary. Not a few statements in the Gospels confirm this result. The brethren of our Lord when mentioned in the Gospels are invariably spoken of as such. They are never called by any other name; nor is there anything said regarding them to suggest that they were other Page 4 than children of Joseph and Mary. It is noteworthy

that they are always described as our Lord's brothers : their relation to Him rather than to Joseph and Mary being emphasized. How can such a usage be explained if they were not His full brothers? It is inconceivable that, had they been merely kinsmen, they would have been invariably spoken of as brothers; and, had they been step-brothers, this fact would in some way have been mentioned. The constant association of the brothers with Mary is fresh confirmation of this view. Why should they always be named along with her if they were not her sons? Mere kinsmen were not likely to be perpetually with her, and just as little were step-children presumably advanced in years. No explanation of the presence of our Lord's brothers in the company of Mary is so obvious or convincing as that of their being her children.

Then, again, Scripture is completely silent as to any previous marriage of Joseph. It is not unreasonable to conclude that, if Joseph had been a widower with children, some mention of the fact would have occurred. If he was a widower with children, where were his children while he lived in Egypt? Were they in Nazareth? Why then did he not go there direct? The only satisfactory answer to this difficulty is that they were grown up, and possibly had homes of their own. But this view is plainly incompatible with the close relationship between Mary and the brothers described in the Gospels. Had they been as Page 5 old or only a little younger than herself, they could not possibly have associated with her as they did. Further, if Joseph had had children before our Lord, would our Lord in this case have been the son of David? Would not the succession to this title have lain rather with the eldest son of Joseph, say James? This argument may not be decisive, but it is certainly not without weight. Moreover, the history of the brothers in the Church is best explained by the view that they were full brothers. Would step-brothers have joined the Church at once and apparently together? Is not such action much more credible in the case of full brothers than of step-brothers, for the brothers, if older than our Lord, had probably long ere this time homes and families of their own.

A calculation as to the age of our Lord's brothers strengthens this conclusion. Paul, writing in, say A.D. 57 (1 Co 95), speaks of our Lord's brothers as occupied with missionary journeys and accompanied by their wives. Is it at all likely that this language could apply to four men born several years before 6-4 B.C.? It is hardly probable that four brothers of such an age should have been alive, and still less probable that they should have been fit for the kind of labour mentioned. But this is to understate the case, at least so far as James is concerned. The first mention of James as the child of Joseph by a former marriage occurs in a work which represents him as grown up at the time of Herod's death (Protevang. Jacobi, 25). A person who was grown up at the death of Herod in Page 6 B.C. 4 must have been born at least in B.C. 20. This would make James seventy-seven when First Corinthians was written. Is it at all likely that a man of this age, accompanied by his wife, should have been able to proceed systematically from Church to Church? There is no difficulty, indeed, in believing the fact in itself, because such instances of long life and bodily vigour are recorded. But there is no proof whatever that James lived to an advanced age, and hence in this case ordinary probability must be taken into account.

But against the opinion that our Lord's brothers were full brothers, several objections have been urged. The weightiest of these is the circumstance that our Lord when on the Cross entrusted His mother to the care of John. How, it is asked, could He have done so had Mary had sons of her own? The common reply, that our Lord acted. as He did because of the unbelief of His brothers, is scarcely satisfactory. Not only was their unbelief soon to he changed into belief, but even their unbelief need not have disqualified them for discharging the primary duty of sons towards a mother. The truth is, that we are wholly ignorant of what led our Lord to entrust His mother to John, and we can only offer conjectures on the subject. These conjectures do not fall to be discussed here;1 but, even though they were inadequate and unsatisfactory, the force of the arguments already produced is not thereby lessened. Besides, it should never be forgotten that the difficulty under discussion is hardly Page 7 more dangerous to the view that our Lord's brothers were the children of Joseph and Mary, than to the view that they were the sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. At most, in the latter case, it is only slightly less; for the step-brothers immediately believed, and the eldest of them rose to a position of commanding importance in Jerusalem. Why in this case did our Lord pass over His step-brothers, especially James, and commend His mother to John? The reason which weighed with Him in passing them over if they were step-brothers might have equally weighed with Him had they been full brothers.

Again, it is argued that the behaviour of our Lord's brothers recorded in the Gospels suggests that they were older rather than younger than Himself. Here confident assertions on the one side are met with equally confident assertions on the other. Conclusions drawn from matter so debatable are in the highest degree uncertain. It cannot be shown that what is related of the conduct of our Lord's brothers is not perfectly consistent with their having been born after Him. Their conviction that His mind had lost its balance, their purpose to put Him under restraint for a time, their unbelief in His claims, are quite compatible with their having been His younger brethren.

The unbelief of our Lord's brethren has also been alleged as a strong argument against the view that they were His full brothers. Their rejection of His claims is said to be more comprehensible if they were older that He. As His seniors, they might feel a Page 8 natural jealousy of His pretensions, and His attitude towards the current religion of His time and towards the leaders of the people might seem to them presumptuous and even arrogant. But is there not a jealousy of youthful as well as of riper years? Is there a greater intrinsic probability that older rather than younger brethren should have rejected the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah? Is it not as easy to produce cogent reasons for the action of the brothers on the supposition that they were younger as on the supposition that they were older? This argument then, like the last, is even on the most favourable view hardly of a feather's weight; both of them together might conceivably turn the scale if the opposing considerations were equal; but, as matters stand, they cease to have any value.

The passages in the Gospels which speak of our Lord's birth, or which set forth the relations between His brothers and Joseph, Mary, and Himself, suggest, without exception, that the brothers were children of Joseph and Mary. No sentence can be quoted implying any other view. Nor can any convincing argument be brought against it; for that derived from the committal of Mary to John is, as has been shown, hardly less destructive of the step-brother than of the full brother hypothesis. The truth, however, is that it is destructive of neither. This testimony of the language and facts of Scripture is confirmed by the testimony of history. Not only has the view that the brothers were full brothers the sanction of the most Page 9 obvious meaning of the Gospels and of the most natural interpretation of the facts which they relate, it has, further, the support of the earliest trustworthy historical evidence.

It must at once be granted that if this question were to be decided by an appeal to tradition, and if by tradition was to be understood the opinion held in the third and fourth centuries, then tradition affirms that they were His step-brothers. Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrosiaster, Gregory of Nyssa, and Epiphanius all held this view. But these writers had no opportunity of consulting trustworthy authorities; their statements show that they had none, and hence do not constitute historical evidence. Their opinions are of no more value than those of men to-day regarding the relationships of William of Orange or of Chatham. The only primary authorities are the Protevangelium of James, the Gospel of Peter, Hegesippus, and Tertullian. The Protevangelium represents Joseph as an old man when Mary was married to him, and with sons of his own of whom James was the oldest. The Gospel according to Peter describes our Lord's brothers as sons of Joseph by a former marriage (Origen on Mt 1355). Whether the testimony of these two writings is independent or not cannot be decided. In the present state of opinion as to their date, it is impossible to determine which is prior to the other, and whether the one makes use of the other. Hence the wisest course is to regard both documents as bearing witness to an opinion Page 10 current in the middle of the second century. But is there any reason for believing that this opinion rested on a historical basis? The writings themselves in which it appears are apocryphal. Both of them are fabrications for a purpose. Not a single assertion they contain can be accepted without confirmation from other sources, for many of their notices are plainly at variance with facts stated in the Gospels. Accordingly, no reliance can be put on the accounts given in them of the relationship of our Lord's brothers to Him; that relationship may have been purely imaginary and devised in a dogmatic interest. At any rate the statements in these writings cannot be regarded as embodying a tradition of the slightest historical value.

The testimony of Hegesippus indicates plainly that James was our Lord's brother; but whether he regarded him as a full brother or not is uncertain. He speaks (Eusebius, H. E. iii. 20) of Jude " as said to be our Lord's brother according to the flesh." This expression has been regarded (Lightfoot, Galatians, 269) as more favourable to the step-brother than to the full brother theory. But it can be quite as naturally understood of the one as of the other. The point emphasized is not that the brothers were Joseph's and not Mary's children, but that they were children of Joseph and Mary, and hence not strictly and truly His brothers. It has been asserted (Lightfoot, Galatians, 269) that the fact that both Eusebius and Epiphanius, who derived their information mainly from Hegesippus, adopted the view that our Lord's Page 11 brothers were His step-brothers, strengthens the position that this was also the view of Hegesippus. The testimony of Epiphanius is much less trustworthy than that of Eusebius, and it will be sufficient for our purpose to examine the language of the latter Father on the subject. His language is as follows (Eusebius, H. E. ii. 1): " This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as the son of Joseph; and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ because the Virgin being betrothed to him was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together, as the account of the Holy Gospels shows." The exact force of this sentence is not clear. To some it appears that Eusebius would not have spoken of James as being known as the son of Joseph had he not regarded him as a son by a previous marriage. Others, however, hold that what he wishes to point out is simply the difference between our Lord as born supernaturally and James as born naturally. The same uncertainty attends the interpretation of the expressions—" James who was one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour " (Eusebius, H. E. i. 12); " James the first bishop there, the one who is called the brother of the Lord " (iii. 7). If the authorship of the treatise on the Star, ascribed to Eusebius, were certain, there could be no doubt as to his view, for mention is there made of the five sons of Hannah (Anna), the first wife of Joseph. It is quite possible that Eusebius held the opinion that our Lord's brothers were not full but step-brothers, and he Page 12 may have so understood the language of Hegesippus; but even though he did, it would not follow that he interpreted Hegesippus correctly. He may have construed the ambiguous phrase so called' in accordance with the prevailing opinion of his time. The phrase might have borne one meaning to Hegesippus and another to him. Further, even though it could be shown that Hegesippus himself believed that our Lord's brothers were the sons of Joseph by a former marriage, his testimony would not show that such was the belief of the Church at large, for he might have accepted this opinion directly or indirectly from the Protevangelium of James or from the Gospel of Peter.

The testimony of the Protevangelium and of the Gospel of Peter must be set aside because of the character of the documents from which it comes. The view of Hegesippus is uncertain. It is otherwise with the opinion of Tertullian. He nowhere asserts categorically that our Lord's brothers were the children of Mary, but this inference may and should be drawn from certain expressions in his writings. The language which he uses when arguing against Marcion (iv. 19), and against Marcion's follower Apelles (de Car. Chr. 7), plainly implies that to him the brothers of our Lord were His brothers in precisely the same sense in which Mary was His mother. He writes, too (de Monog. 8, and de Virg. Vel. 6), in a manner which shows that he took for granted that Joseph and Mary lived together after our Lord's birth as married persons. That this inference as to the view Page 13 of Tertullian is correct, appears from the positive assertion of Helvidius, an assertion that even Jerome does not call in question (adv. Helvid. 17). But Tertullian may be regarded as giving not his own opinion merely, but that generally entertained. Had the view that the brethren of our Lord were the sons of Joseph by a deceased wife been known or accepted by him, he could not possibly have written as he does. From the manner in which he expresses himself, it is probable that he was acquainted with no opinion except that which he himself held. If this inference be correct, the Church generally in the age of Tertullian, that is, towards the end of the second century, believed that our Lord's brothers were the children of Joseph and Mary. Certainly Tertullian was of all men of his time the least likely to entertain this opinion unless he had regarded it as the only legitimate inference from Scripture, or had found it current within the Church. The assertion may therefore be regarded as established, that the most ancient trustworthy evidence is in favour of the opinion that our Lord's brothers were the sons of Joseph and Mary.

The only theory that is entitled to be seriously considered along with that just discussed and affirmed, is the hypothesis that our Lord's brothers were stepbrothers, the children of Joseph by a former wife. But the arguments against this opinion are decisive. Why is not even the slightest hint given that Joseph was previously married? Why are the brothers not spoken of as step-brothers even on a single occasion? Page 14 The step-brother hypothesis affords an altogether inadequate explanation of the language of Matthew and Luke already discussed, and indeed of all the statements bearing upon our Lord's brothers and their relations to our Lord. It cannot for one moment be compared with the hypothesis that they were full brothers, for the natural and straightforward sense which it attaches to the statements of Scripture. Notwithstanding, it has often been argued that it deserves to be preferred to any other because it has the sanction of tradition, and on this ground has been strongly supported by many writers. This claim, however, has just been examined and shown to be baseless. The verdict of history is not for, but against the hypothesis that our Lord's brothers were the sons of Joseph by a former marriage. If any opinion existed in the first two centuries among Catholic Christians, it was the view that our Lord's brothers were uterine and not step-brothers. Moreover, it is, to say the least, highly probable that the view that our Lord's brothers were not the sons of Joseph and Mary can be traced to the sentiment prevailing in the third and fourth centuries as to the superiority of the celibate to the wedded life. Origen affirms distinctly that the brothers of our Lord were the sons of Joseph by a deceased wife (on Jn 212, Mt 1311). But it is plain from his statement that the authorities on which he relied were the apocryphal Gospel of Peter and the equally apocryphal Protevangelium of James, and that he was influenced in his Page 15 opinion by a desire to preserve the honour of Mary. Mary, he thought, should be " the first fruit of virginity among women, as her son was the first fruit of purity and chastity among men." The same considerations that influenced Origen doubtless influenced succeeding writers. If we had full knowledge of their modes of thought, we should probably discover that not Scripture nor history, but a dogmatic conception lay at the root of their view that our Lord's brothers were His step-brothers. It is reasonable to conclude also that the views of Clement of Alexandria, which, as we know from the translation of the Hypotyposes by Cassiodorius were the same as those of Origen, were derived from the same apocryphal sources and accepted from the same motives.1 Perhaps the most conclusive argument against the historical basis of the stepbrother hypothesis is the contempt with which Jerome speaks of it (on Mt 1249). He would never have ventured to characterise it as he does had he believed it to rest on any other foundation than the " ravings of apocryphal writings."

Another argument, however, in favour of the stepbrother theory is its alleged harmony with general Christian sentiment. It is said to commend itself at once to every Christian by its obvious propriety. Now it cannot be denied that the sentiment that Mary Page 16 must have remained a virgin has been widely accepted in all ages and by all Churches. Her perpetual virginity is a dogma in the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches; but the tenet is not peculiar to these. It is affirmed in some Protestant symbols (Art. Smalk. 1. 4, Form. Concord., Helvetic Con.), and has been maintained by many writers whose Protestantism and orthodoxy are above suspicion. That this sentiment was exceedingly active in the early ages of the Church is unquestionable; but co-operating with it, and perhaps even preceding and causing it, was a false estimate of the married life. Marriage, if not regarded as in itself impure, was yet esteemed a lower condition when compared with virginity. The ascetic view, which exalted the unwedded above the wedded life, was current in the first century; and St. Paul has even occasion to denounce those who actually forbade marriage (1 Ti 43). This mode of thought soon acquired wide influence in the Church. Abstinence from marriage became the duty of all who aspired to live the highest type of life. The mother of our Lord came to be regarded as the ideal of woman, and so it was necessary to believe that she bore no child after our Lord, and was emphatically the ideal of the virgin life.

The worth of the sentiment that there was a moral fitness that Mary should bear no other children will be differently estimated to the end of time. To some its weight will appear considerable, to others trifling; but it certainly cannot be described as based on any Christian principle, or as in the true sense of the term Page 17 universal. If it has prevailed extensively, so, too, has the opposite view. But sentiment is no evidence as to facts. The assertion that Mary cannot have had other children than our Lord, because there would have been a moral unseemliness in her having them, is an argument which carries no logical or demonstrative force, and, viewed in itself and more particularly in the light of Jewish sentiment on the subject of marriage and of Christian sentiment as to the most suitable home life for our Lord, is open to the gravest objections. Marriage was regarded by the Jews as a duty, and children as a special proof of the divine favour. What likelihood is there that this view was not held by Joseph and Mary? Hardly anything short of a command from God could have induced them to think otherwise, and where is the evidence that any such injunction was laid upon them? Further, would not our Lord have been deprived of some of the most valuable lessons of life had He been an only child? Our Lord was evidently intended to share largely in the common lot of man. Was it not, therefore, of consequence for Him to know what it is to have brothers and sisters? Obviously, therefore, the alleged weighty if not conclusive argument drawn from Christian sentiment can be opposed by other arguments still more conclusive.

The theory propounded by Jerome is that the Lord's brothers were His cousins. This view he sought to establish as follows. James the Lord's brother was an Apostle, as is plain from Gal 11g. But. he lived Page 18 long after the death of the son of Zebedee, the only other James among the Apostles; and hence he must be identical with James the son of Alphaeus. This James the son of Alpheus was also known as James the less (Mk 1540) as contrasted with the son of Zebedee, James the greater. James the less, the son of Alphaeus, had a brother Joses. The mother of James and Joses bore the name of Mary (Mt 2756, Mk 1540), and she was among the women who witnessed our Lord's crucifixion. This Mary, then, was the wife of Alpheus, the father of James and Joses. But our Lord had two brothers (Mk 63) named James and Joses. And from John (1925) it is clear that among the women at the Cross was Mary a sister of the Virgin. Now, as Mary the mother of James and Joses is stated to have been at the Cross, the identity of this Mary with the sister of the Virgin is evident, and our Lord's brothers are consequently His cousins. This is the theory as advanced by Jerome himself : later scholars enlarged and made it more systematic; but with these additions it is unnecessary to deal.

The theory has no historical basis. Its author does not quote any previous scholars by whom it was held, and he would unquestionably have done so had this been in his power. It is consequently a mere hypothesis, the value of which is to be estimated by its explanation of the facts of Scripture. But its value in this connection is seriously lessened by two considerations. It is a theory avowedly devised in the interests of Mary's perpetual virginity; Jerome Page 19 takes credit to himself for advancing a view which affirms not only the virginity of Mary, but that of Joseph as well. It cannot be doubted that Jerome sought in Scripture a support for his theory rather than discovered his theory in Scripture. Further, Jerome himself does not adhere to his own view. His treatise against Helvidius, in which he states and expounds his opinion that our Lord's brothers were His cousins, was written probably about 383. But in his epistle to Hedibia, which is assigned to the years 406-407, he distinguished Mary of Cleophas from Mary the mother of James and Joses, although the identity of these women is one of the foundations of his own theory. He adds, however, that some contend that the mother of James and Joses was our Lord's aunt.

Moreover, most of the propositions that constitute Jerome's theory are questionable, and none of them indisputable. That James is called an Apostle by Paul is highly probable, though the fact has been debated. But it does not follow that he was one of the Twelve, for Paul uses the word Apostle' in a sense applicable to others besides the Twelve. The identification of James the son of Alpheus with James the little, the son of Mary, is precarious; and the assertion by which it is accompanied, that James the less is distinguished from James the greater, is inaccurate. For the epithet ' less ' applies probably to stature, and no contrast is drawn between him and any other James. That the Mary of Cleophas mentioned in John is the same as Mary the mother of James and Page 20 Joses in Matthew and Mark, is possible and even probable. But the last and most important identification, that of Mary of Cleophas with the sister of the Virgin, which is the keystone of the theory, is in the highest degree unlikely. It takes for granted that there were two sisters of the same name, Mary, a case as unusual in an ordinary family in Judea in our Lord's time as it would be in an ordinary family among ourselves to-day. Yet, again, Jerome assumes that in Jn 1925 only three women are mentioned. But, according to the most tenable construction, four women and not three are referred to by John. On this view of the verse the sister of our Lord's mother is quite distinct from Mary the wife of Cleophas, and the entire theory based upon this identification collapses.

But objections still more decisive remain. The hypothesis is altogether opposed to the distinction clearly drawn in the Gospels and Acts between our Lord's brothers on the one hand and the twelve Apostles on the other. This distinction renders it out of the question that two at least of our Lord's brothers should have been among the Apostles. It is equally refuted by the unbelief of our Lord's brothers in His claims, to which express witness is borne in the Gospels (Jn 715). How could our Lord's brothers have been thus described had two of them at least been among the Twelve? Further, how conies it to pass that these brethren appear in the Gospels with Mary their aunt and not with Mary their mother? Does not this show plainly that their alleged mother was not their real mother? Page 21 Moreover, the theory of Jerome is utterly inconsistent with the proper sense of the term 'brothers.' If our Lord's brothers were His cousins, why are they not called so? The word 'cousin' is as common in Greek (ἀνεψιός) as in English. Why is the term never used to designate the actual relationship in this theory between our lord and His so-called brother? No instance can be drawn from the New Testament and none from Classical Greek to prove that the term 'brother' ever includes cousin. Three cases are quoted from the Old Testament (Gn 14:4, Lv 10:4, 1 Ch 23:21, 22; Mayor, Epistle of James, 10) where cousins are designated by the term 'brothers,' and in two of these cases the Hebrew term (אַח) for 'brother' is represented by the Greek term (ἀδελφός) for 'brother.' But no stress can obviously be laid on isolated examples of this kind; least of all can they be held to indicate an established usage. The common assertion as to the laxity with which the word 'brother' is used in Hebrew is inaccurate, as a glance at any good Hebrew lexicon will show. Nothing is more certain than that the word 'brother' in N.T. times had as clear and definite a sense as it has in English to-day. Finally, the earliest Patristic evidence available is opposed to Jerome's view of the identity of our Lord's brothers with His cousins; for Hegesippus employs the term 'brother' to designate James and Jude, while he reserves the term 'cousin' to designate Symeoon, James's father's brother's son, who succeeded him in the bishopric of Jerusalem.

JAMES, then, was the brother of our Lord in the ordinary sense of that term, being a son of Mary His mother. Two lists of our Lord's brothers are given in the Gospels (Mt 1355, Mk 63). According to these, their names were James, Joseph or Joses, Simon, and Judas. The order in which the names are given is probably that of seniority, as this is the principle of arrangement commonly adopted in such cases. On this supposition James would be the eldest son of Joseph and Mary. Whether James, besides being the eldest son, was the eldest child, is altogether uncertain. He had sisters as well as brothers, and one or more of the sisters may have been born before him. No inference as to the respective ages of the sons and daughters can be drawn from the fact that the daughters are not mentioned as accompanying their mother to Capernaum (Jn 212), that they do not appear like the sons in her company, and that the citizens of Nazareth speak of them as residing in their midst. The daughters seem to have had homes of their own in Page 23 Nazareth, but this circumstance throws no light on the question whether any of them were born before James or not.

Among the Jews of our Lord's time the ties between parents and children were of the closest and tenderest kind. Their duties were reciprocal. If a child was bound to honour and obey its parents, the parents in turn were not less bound to pay the utmost attention to the welfare, moral and physical, of the child. Nowhere through the world was there such noble and attractive family life as among the Jews.

If the sense of parental responsibility was strongly felt by all Jews, it would be especially felt by the father and mother of James, because of their high character and their relation to our Lord. Accordingly, it cannot be doubted that James, together with his brothers and sisters, was brought up in an atmosphere charged with reverence for God and love for man, with tenderness, freedom, and joy. The supreme aim of Jewish parents was to instil into their children from their earliest years the knowledge and observance of the Law. In a home like that of Joseph and Mary, the Law meant not merely rites and ceremonies, but especially the fear of God and the practice of virtue. The earliest lessons received by James from the lips of his father or of his mother were doubtless those of piety. The first truth implanted in his mind would be belief in God as the one Father and Creator of the world. The existence of the one God in whom all Jews believed, the only God, the God who had Page 24 entered into covenant with the nation, whose Law they held in unlimited reverence, and whose name and character were their glory, was inculcated on the mind of James before any of the written or unwritten laws with which he would afterwards become familiar (cf. Philo, Leg. ad Caium, 16). Thereafter he would commit to memory the Shona, the fundamental confession of faith in God (Dt 64. 7.11.18.21, Nu 1537-41), possibly some child's prayer, and some of the Psalms. Before he could read he would hear from his mother the tales of Joseph, and Samson, and David, and the other national heroes. It is possible that the usages which were binding at a later time already prevailed in the age of James, and that boys were then required to repeat the common prayer and to pray at table (Berachoth iii. 3). The worship of the home and of the synagogue and the recurrence of the different annual festivals would contribute largely to the moral education of James. His curiosity would be aroused by the phylacteries or prayer straps worn by his father on his left arm and on his forehead at morning prayer on ordinary days, and by the tassels or fringes of blue or white wool which he wore at the four corners of his upper garment (Zizith). The Mezuza or box fixed upon the right-hand doorpost, containing in twenty-two lines the two paragraphs Dt 64.9.11.13.21, touched reverently by every visitor as he entered, and which he was doubtless himself taught to touch, must have stimulated his mind and imagination. He would Page 25 have much to ask regarding the steps taken by his father and mother in connection with the observance of the Sabbath and the different sacred days. From his earliest hours of consciousness he would be taught, alike by the speech and example of his parents, reverence for God and for the Law, together with lessons of truthfulness, simplicity, mercy, and beneficence.

But, though the education of every Jew consisted almost exclusively in religion, and therefore bore chiefly on conduct, the intellectual element was not absent. The fact that duty was embodied in sacred books was an intellectual stimulus, and caused reading and writing to be largely cultivated. The ability to read the Law was eagerly sought, and hence reading and even writing were widely diffused among the common people. James may have been taught to read and write by his parents or by travelling teachers. But, judging from the size of Nazareth, it probably bad a school to which he would be sent. The age at which attendance at school began is differently stated by different authorities, some making it five and others six; the latter view is that which is found in the Talmud, and probably represents the general custom. The teacher of the school has hitherto been commonly identified with the clerk or officer of the synagogue (Hazzan); but this view has lately been disputed (art. Education ' in Hastings' DB, vol. i. p. 650). Considering the high estimation in which the teacher was held by the Jews, it does Page 26 seem improbable that duties so important as his should be combined with the charge of the rolls of the Synagogue and with the whipping of criminals. It must not therefore be taken for granted without further inquiry that the officer of the Synagogue was at the same time the teacher of the school, for it is quite possible that these were distinct occupations. The teacher of the school may have belonged to those doctors of the law spoken of by Luke (517). These were found, according to him, in every village of Galilee and Judaea. The suggestion that the teachers of schools were found in this class has much to recommend it.

The subject of instruction was the Law. During the earlier years of school life, Scripture was the only text-book. The custom in later times was to begin with the Pentateuch and then to proceed to the Prophets and finally to the Hagiographa. The first book to be read was Leviticus, as it was the chief source of knowledge regarding the Law. It is quite possible that the education of James followed some such course as this.

To determine the language in which this education was given should, to all appearance, be the easiest of tasks; yet upon no question is there greater uncertainty. It is stated nearly everywhere that this instruction was given in Hebrew, for Hebrew only was allowed in school. It is, however, difficult to frame a conception of the manner in which boys who spoke Aramaic at home could be taught to read and Page 27 write in what was to them a foreign tongue. Was a boy in Nazareth set to read Hebrew and not Aramaic? Did he learn to read it without understanding it? If he could read and understand it, what necessity was there that the lessons read in the Synagogue should be translated into the vernacular? Was this done merely for the sake of the women? Again, is it in the least probable that village boys would be taught to write in a language which they could not speak, and which was at this time, so far as spoken, a tongue confined to the learned?

These difficulties are so grave as to throw much doubt on the assertion that the Hebrew Bible was the text-book from which boys were taught to read and write, It is hardly possible to conceive how boys belonging to the common people could have been taught these arts in other than their native Aramaic. Whether the teachers themselves were acquainted with Hebrew must remain an open question, although it is probable they were; but that they employed any other tongue except Aramaic in teaching reading and writing, is scarcely credible. If, then, instruction was given in Aramaic, there must have been in existence translations of at least certain portions of the O.T. into Aramaic adapted for use in schools, if not a complete translation. The only alternative supposition is that every teacher knew Hebrew, and translated certain passages of that language into Aramaic for the benefit of his pupils. But this latter view is so improbable Page 28 that it may be concluded that a child's Bible if not a people's Bible in Aramaic existed in the time of our Lord. This child's Bible would be the text-book from which James was taught to read and write.

What special form of Aramaic James was taught cannot be ascertained. It is doubtful whether any existing works contain the idiom spoken in Palestine during the first century. The best scholars hold that there were several dialects of Aramaic, and that at least three varieties of it were to be found : one in Judaea, a second in Samaria, and a third in Galilee. The first of these was probably the language of literature, and the speech of educated persons throughout the land. It is barely possible that this was the dialect that James acquired, but it is much more probable that he was taught the dialect which was current in Galilee, and which in the latter half of the second century became the common speech of the whole land (Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, 14).

What James learnt at school, besides Scripture, or, indeed, whether he learnt anything else, and how long he remained there, is altogether uncertain. No evidence exists to show whether the children of the working class ever entered upon the study of what, when reduced to writing, became the Mishna. The rule often quoted, that this study should be taken after the tenth year, is long posterior to the time of James, and is perhaps quite inapplicable to Jewish schools in the first century. It is barely possible that as the Mishna was in a sense more highly valued Page 29 than the Old Testament itself in our Lord's time, the teachers who were acquainted with it would naturally introduce their most promising scholars to its contents. Attendance at school by the children of the common people would hardly cease as early as ten, and accordingly a number of the brighter children may have acquired at school some elementary knowledge of the Oral Law. It is conceivable that James gained some acquaintance with this Law at school; but if he did, that acquaintance was so slight as not to entitle him to be regarded as familiar with the Law. His education was in no sense different from that of the Jewish children of the working classes. Of higher instruction in the technical Jewish sense he had none.

What opportunity, if any, of learning Hebrew, the language of the sacred books, was open to boys in the position of James, cannot be ascertained. It would be rash to take for granted that the ordinary schoolboy was taught any language except Aramaic. At the same time, the connection between Aramaic and Hebrew was so close and the enthusiasm for the study of the Law so great, that not a few boys may have acquired the ability to read Hebrew even at the common school. That our Lord possessed this ability is generally admitted. It is not to be supposed that He enjoyed greater advantages than James, and hence James, too, may have been able to read the Old Testament in Hebrew. It is hardly credible that Joseph possessed either the whole of Page 30 the O.T. in Hebrew or even a single book of it. But he may have been able to purchase the sections used for the education of children. Or both our Lord and James may have obtained access to the rolls preserved in the Synagogue, which were the property of the community, and may thus have read the O.T. in Hebrew. (Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, i. 234, thinks that a complete copy of the Old Testament was possessed by our Lord's family.)

James then learned to read and write Aramaic at school; possibly, too, he may have been taught some Hebrew. That he studied Greek at school, and was thus able to read the LXX, is much less probable. Of the wide diffusion of Greek in Galilee during the first century there is ample evidence. The administration of affairs throughout Galilee was carried on in Greek. Greek was not only the universal language of literature; it was not less the language of commercial and of public life. Greek, in fact, was to Aramaic what English is to Welsh or Gaelic to-day, and it may be taken for granted that James knew Greek as well as the average Welshman or Highlander knows English. That our Lord was acquainted with Greek may probably be inferred from His conversation with Pilate, with the centurion, and with the Greeks who desired to see Him. The familiarity with Greek which our Lord had, James doubtless had equally. Aramaic was spoken in the home at Nazareth, but the ability to understand and speak Greek was probably possessed by most of its members. Page 31 The attendance of James at school would hardly be prolonged beyond the twelfth or thirteenth year. The latter age was, centuries after the time of James, fixed on as the period at which a Jew became ' a son of the commandments,' and as such bound to observe the entire Law (Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, App.). In the first century no uniform age was observed, but every youth as soon as the signs of manhood appeared was held bound to obey the whole Law. Perhaps before he was thirteen James had gone up to Jerusalem at one or other of the three great annual festivals. Certainly he would go up then, and probably thereafter he visited the capital regularly. These visits, together with his religious and moral training in the home and the worship of the Synagogue, were, after the example of his father and mother, the influences by which he was chiefly moulded. The life of the household in which he was brought up was one of the utmost simplicity and frugality. The furniture and meals and the dress of all the members were of the plainest kind. Luxury was unknown, just as poverty was equally unknown. The necessaries of life were much cheaper in Galilee than in Judaea, and a moderate income sufficed to maintain a family in comfort. Food, clothing, and a house were readily procured by any man prepared to work. Joseph, it may be taken for granted, was diligent in business, and his trade of village carpenter or wright, though doubtless yielding him only a modest competence, Page 32 was amply sufficient to supply the wants of his family. The sons and daughters of the home would be brought up to assist their father and mother from their earliest years, and the boys would be set to work as soon as they left school. If James was next to our Lord in age, it is quite possible that, like our Lord, he may also have been a carpenter. He is designated as such by tradition (History of Joseph, 2), but the statement is evidently derived from the Gospels. There might not be sufficient work in Nazareth to keep three members of one household employed as carpenters. It is certain, however, at once from the custom prevailing among the Jews, from the character of his parents, and from his rank in life, that James was bred to some trade, although the particular occupation he followed must remain undetermined.

It was customary for men among the Jews to marry at the age of eighteen (Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, App. 97); and as marriage was held in the highest estimation among them, it is reasonable to conclude that James was married. Marriage was, in fact, regarded as a duty, and a maxim is quoted from the Talmud to the effect that a man without a wife is not a man (Jebamoth, 63a; Taylor, Sayings, 17; cf. Lightfoot, Colossians, 377). But it is not necessary to infer from Jewish sentiments regarding wedlock that James was married. There need be no hesitation on the question, for Paul asserts (1 Co 95) that the brothers of the Lord took their wives Page 33 with them when they went to visit the Churches or to evangelise. The conclusion that James was married, seems to follow inevitably from this statement. It has, however, been argued that Paul might have expressed himself thus had the majority of the brothers been married, even though James had remained unmarried. But is it conceivable that he would have spoken so absolutely had the most distinguished of our Lord's brothers, of whom every hearer of his letter would naturally first think, formed an exception to his statement? Still it is urged that Paul could hardly have thought of James as married, because tradition, which has far more to say regarding him than any of his brothers, does not speak of his descendants (Zahn, Einl. i. 74). As an argument to be weighed against Paul's assertion this consideration is of no moment; and even apart from that assertion its force is not great, for the information we possess from other than Scripture sources regarding James is scanty and in large measure untrustworthy.1 Besides, does it follow that because no mention is made of James' descendants that he left no descendants? Would they have been mentioned had they been females only, or had they died early? Again, does it follow that if a man has no children he is not married?

It is further contended that an ascetic like James would not marry. Granting that he was an ascetic, Page 34 why should he not marry? Samson and Samuel are commonly adduced as his prototypes. Were they not married? Is there any evidence that James looked on marriage with other sentiments than those of the great majority of his fellow-countrymen? Or will it be affirmed that he shared the views of the Essenes respecting it? Accordingly, there is not the shadow of a reason for rejecting the opinion that James was married.

Was James a Nazirite? Nowhere in the New Testament is he termed such. Nor is there a sentence or phrase in his own letter suggesting that he was. Yet he is commonly represented as a Nazirite, and many inferences as to his sentiments have been derived from this circumstance.

How has it come to pass that James is often described as a Nazirite? The statement that he was such is found first in its complete form in Epiphanius. But a statement of a writer in the fourth century is evidently of no historical value. Epiphanius had no personal knowledge either of the life of James or of the Nazirite vow in the first century. If his assertion is not a mere conjecture, it is probably an inference from the language of Hegesippus regarding James. Not a few scholars have drawn the same conclusion from that language as Epiphanius did. They contend that his description implies that James was a Nazirite. But if this were the case, why did Hegesippus not mention so remarkable a fact? Besides, even had he done so, his assertion would be questionable, because Page 35 the source from which he has drawn most of this information regarding James appears altogether untrustworthy. There is no reason to believe that either Hegesippus or the authority on which he depended had any direct knowledge regarding James, or that any credible tradition as to his mode of life had reached them. How then did the tradition arise? It is probably due to the suggestion made by James to Paul on the occasion of the last visit of the latter to Jerusalem. He then advised him to show his fidelity to the law of his fathers by becoming responsible for the charges of certain men who had taken a vow. This vow is commonly and perhaps justly regarded as that of the Nazirite. The counsel given by James is apparently, then, the source of the tradition that he was a Nazirite.

Many writers, while acknowledging the inadequacy of the evidence for the view that James was under a perpetual Nazirite vow, regard this as extremely probable, and accordingly describe him as such. But there is a wide gulf between the belief that James may have been a Nazirite and the proof that he was one. The reasons commonly assigned are not convincing. It is to be observed, first of all, that there is no agreement among the upholders of this opinion as to when James became a Nazirite for life. Some hold that he was such from birth, others that he took this vow in later life. How is this vital point to be determined? Who is to reconcile such diverging views?

The most widely accepted opinion is that James Page 36 was devoted to the service of God from his birth. His parents in gratitude for the unique honour done to Mary as the mother of the Messiah set him apart as a Nazirite. But there is no evidence that Joseph and Mary acted thus. Nor is there any account of their feelings at the birth of James which sanctions any such view. Is it not as probable that, with one child already destined to an extraordinary career, they should resolve to bring up the newborn babe in the ordinary way as that they should place him under the vow of a Nazirite? If they had been able to think of such a vow at all, would they not most naturally have placed our Lord under it? Besides, what is told us regarding the life of our Lord hardly favours the opinion that James was under such a vow? Our Lord's manner of life was probably derived from that observed at home. He drank wine; what ground is there for holding that James acted differently? It is answered that the tradition preserved by Hegesippus affirms that he drank no wine, and that there is no ground for rejecting this statement. But is the assertion of Hegesippus, or rather of the authority on which he depended, to be preferred to that of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the author of which was quite as likely to be correctly informed regarding the habits of James as Hegesippus? According to that Gospel, James was present at the institution of the Lord's Supper, and actually drank of the cup. Whatever the value of this statement as a matter of fact, it proves that in the second century and in Page 37 Jewish Christian circles James was not believed to be a Nazirite. From the fragments of the Gospel which have come down to us, it is evident that the author held James in the highest honour. Would he have represented him as present at the Lord's Supper, and as drinking of the cup, had he believed that he had taken a vow to drink no wine?

The theory that James was a Nazirite has been used to explain many of the real and alleged facts of his career. It has been suggested that he owned his title of the Just to his being a Nazirite. But he is never called a Nazirite before the fourth century, and he did not need to be a Nazirite to earn this designation. The supposed connection is a mere possibility, and no more credible than any other.

The tone of prophetic authority and fiery vehemence with which he speaks has been traced to the same source. If it were proved that he was not a Nazirite, would not the tone of authority remain? Is the tone not a fact on any hypothesis, and is not the obvious explanation of it to be found in his natural temperament? The alienation of our Lord's brothers has also been brought into connection with the Nazirite vow of James. But if this argument is cogent, all the brothers must have been Nazirites, for they were all estranged from our Lord. Were they all, then, Nazirites?

It has further been contended that, as a Nazirite, James may have been admitted, as Hegesippus relates, into the Sanctuary. But this is a baseless supposition. Page 38 It has been argued that the privileges assigned to the Rechabites enable us to believe that analogous privileges may have been assigned to the Nazirites. But in the case of the Rechabites trustworthy historical evidence is to be had. In the case before us that evidence, to say the least, is in dispute. Besides, there is no real parallel between the inclusion of the Rechabites among the singers in the Temple and the admission of James into the Holy Place.

The recklessness, indeed, with which even writers of distinction speak regarding Nazirites for life in the first century is extraordinary. Their existence is treated as indisputable, and John the Baptist and James are brought forward as typical instances; and it is taken for granted that they both lived according to the same rule. Now there is no evidence to show that the Baptist was a Nazirite. He is never described as such in Scripture, nor is it said that his head was unshorn. If the Baptist had his hair cut, as other Jews, the practice of James, according to Hegesippus, was different, for he states expressly that no razor came upon the head of James. Further, between the mode of life of the Baptist and that of James, according to Hegesippus, there is a striking and even cardinal difference. A principal part of the food of the Baptist was locusts. James, on the other hand, is said never to have touched flesh. It is plain, then, that the Baptist and the James of Hegesippus cannot be regarded as men living under the same rule and as such Nazirites. There is no proof that the Baptist Page 39 was a Nazirite. There is no proof that James was a Nazirite. The fact is that no evidence for the existence of Nazirites for life in the first century has as yet been adduced. That such Nazirites may have existed is possible, but that their existence has been demonstrated must be denied, for none of the statements in the Talmud can be regarded as contributing to the settlement of this question.

The assertion that James was a Nazirite for life may therefore be challenged with much reasonableness. Further, is it likely that a Nazirite for life would settle in Jerusalem? The only alleged Nazirite of New Testament times, the Baptist, lived in the desert. Was such a Nazirite likely to marry? Samson and Samuel were indeed married; but even allowing that they were Nazirites, there is no evidence that they lived the ascetic life attributed by tradition to James. Was a Nazirite likely to be chosen to occupy a chief, if not the chief place in the Church of Jerusalem? Would not his vow have restricted his movements and lessened his usefulness? But, above all, how could a Nazirite take part in the Lord's Supper? If James was a Nazirite, did he break his vow habitually when he sat down with his fellow-Christians at the Lord's Supper, or did he abstain altogether from participation in that ordinance? Either supposition is incredible, and this incredibility is the disproof of the assertion that James was a Nazirite, since the essence of the Nazirite vow was abstinence from wine and from intoxicating liquor of every kind. Page 40 It is natural to inquire whether James during the formative years of his life came under the influence either of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, or the Essenes. That he was affected by the opinions and policy of the Sadducees has never been suggested, for there is no possible affinity between his tastes and hopes and theirs. On the other hand, it has been supposed that the views of the Pharisees may have told powerfully upon him; and some find in the severely legal attitude commonly ascribed to him the proof that he embraced their tenets and practices. That James was not enrolled among the Pharisees can scarcely be questioned. That party numbered only a few thousands, and there is no reason for holding that James was ever one of them. Was he governed by the motives which led to the formation of the party? Was he more particularly of the same type as Shammai, stern, rigorous (this is the view of Edersheim), and strenuously devoted to the practice of all the rites and ceremonies enjoined by tradition? Not a tittle of evidence exists to show that he was such. And unless it be supposed that after his conversion he became altogether different from what he formerly was, and of this there is no proof, his Epistle demonstrates that of the spirit of Shammai or even of the spirit of Hillel he possessed not a trace. The feature common to these two great leaders of the school is the purpose to elaborate and define the ceremonial and ritual Law. But these aspects of the Law are altogether ignored by James. Accordingly, Page 41 it must not be taken for granted that James was a Pharisee in practice if not in name, addicted to the observance of every precept of tradition, and striving to achieve for himself perfect conformity to the will of God in this respect. He was much rather a man of the people, on whom the Pharisees would have looked down as accursed because of his ignorance of the Law.

But if James was neither a Pharisee nor a Sadducee, and probably unmoved by the views or influence of either of these parties, was he not profoundly affected by the Essenes? Did he not adopt their convictions and usages? Was he not himself an Essene? Those writers who have sought to prove that the influence of the Essenes was extensive, have not hesitated to include James among the adherents of the party. The chief evidence on which they rely is the description of his mode of life as given by Hegesippus. But that description cannot be shown to depend on the personal knowledge of Hegesippus, and is indeed probably derived from an apocryphal writing composed in the interests of a heretical sect and without the slightest regard to historical truth. Besides, the narrative of Hegesippus ascribes practices to James wholly at variance with Jewish usage; and there is not the slightest reason for accepting that portion of it which is supposed to speak of him as virtually an Essene, and for rejecting the rest. The narrative is of a piece, and must be accepted or rejected as a whole. Further, Hegesippus himself never calls James an Essene, and, indeed, there are no Page 42 clear and certain features of Essenism in the portrait he draws. The truth is, that it was impossible for a Christian to be an Essene, or for an Essene to be a Christian. Most, if not all, Essenes belonged to a brotherhood distinguished by common meals, worship, and possessions. With few exceptions they rejected marriage. All of them disbelieved in the resurrection of the body, condemned the animal sacrifices, and cherished a secret creed. Such tenets and usages are wholly alien to the spirit and laws of Christianity. (The analogies pointed out between Christianity and Essenism by Dr. Ginsburg in his article on the Essenes in Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography are at the best superficial, and certainly furnish no proof that Christianity sprang from Essenism, or that a Christian could be an Essene.)

Several changes of great importance probably occurred in the household of Nazareth before our Lord entered on His public ministry. The greatest of these would undoubtedly be the death of Joseph. The opinion that Joseph died while our Lord was living in private is probably correct. His name is not mentioned on several occasions upon which, had he been alive, it would almost certainly have been given. It can scarcely be questioned that, had her husband been alive, Mary would not have been entrusted by our Lord to the care of John (Jn 1927). The fact that when our Lord visited Nazareth the names of His mother and brothers are mentioned and not that of His reputed father, suggests that he had died before Page 43 this visit (Mk 61ff.). Again, when it is related that His mother and brothers sought an interview with Him at Capernaum at what must have seemed to them a critical moment in His career, the inference must be that Joseph was dead; otherwise the absence of his name would be inexplicable. The earliest notice of Mary and her sons in the Gospels favours the same conclusion. Immediately after the performance of His first miracle, our Lord, accompanied by His mother and brothers and certain disciples, went down from Nazareth to Capernaum (Jn 212). Joseph would almost certainly have been included in this group had he been alive. It may, then, be taken for granted that Joseph died before our Lord's public ministry began. The date of his death is altogether unknown. No credibility attaches to the statement of the History of Joseph the Carpenter (chaps. 10. 15. 29) that he died at the age of one hundred and eleven, and about the nineteenth year of our Lord's life (14. 15). The death of Joseph must have altered to some extent the relations between our Lord and His younger brothers. By that event He became more responsible than before for the maintenance and wellbeing of His mother and of any members of the family unable to support themselves. It would also tend to increase His moral authority within the home. The circumstance that He was now its oldest male member and probably the chief breadwinner, would add to the intrinsic weight of His character and counsels. Page 44 Other changes, too, may have taken place within the family circle before our Lord entered upon His public career. Most if not all the brothers and sisters may have set up homes of their own. This was probably the case with James, as late marriages were not common among the Jews. It is even possible that Mary and our Lord were left in the home at Nazareth alone. On the other hand, one or two members of the family may still have remained under the roof at the time when His ministry began.

OUR Lord's brethren are first mentioned shortly after the miracle at Cana. " After this He went down to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples, and there they abode not many days "   212). Mary's sons apparently did not accompany her to the marriage at Cana, for no notice is taken of their presence there. After the miracle our Lord and His mother, with, it would seem, the earliest disciples as their guests, returned to Nazareth; and shortly after the same company, with the addition of our Lord's brothers, went down to Capernaum, perhaps on the invitation of Andrew and Peter. They may have proposed to visit Jerusalem at the ensuing feast of the Passover. It has sometimes been asserted that our Lord's family had either already quitted Nazareth or did so on this occasion, settling in Capernaum. But would Philip have described our Lord as of Nazareth had His home been in Capernaum? (Jn 145). Again, the phrase " not many days " favours the view that our Lord went there to visit rather than to reside, Perhaps Page 46 what He saw of Capernaum on this occasion may have led Him to fix His residence there when He began His ministry in Galilee (Mt 413). The circumstance that our Lord's brothers went with Him to Capernaum along with His disciples, is a proof of the closeness of the ties uniting our Lord and them. No shadow of estrangement had as yet fallen upon their relations. If the brothers were married by this time, the strength of their attachment to our Lord appears only the greater.

Were Mary and His brothers influenced by other motives than those of friendliness when they went down to Capernaum? Had Mary or the disciples told the brothers of the miracle at Cana? And were mother, brothers, and disciples alike elated by the hope that Jesus was about to inaugurate His Messianic career? Did they anticipate that Capernaum would be the theatre in which He would work still greater marvels than that of Cana? The casual statement of John regarding their journey hardly countenances any such opinion. No trace of the existence of such motives is found in the text. No indication is given of any connection between the miracle and the step taken by Mary and the brothers. As there is no proof that our Lord remained more than a short time at Capernaum, or wrought any miracles there, it is wiser to hold that the motives governing the action of Mary and her sons were those of ordinary friendship. (Godet on Lk 212 holds that they were under the impression Page 47 of the miracle of Cana, and were curious to see how the drama which had begun in so amazing a manner would unfold.)

The next occasion on which our Lord's brothers are mentioned in the Gospels is when they sought to interfere with His labours (Mk 320. 21. 31) The time was probably in the autumn of A.D. 27. He had just re-entered Capernaum, but the excitement created by His presence was such that it was impossible for Him to obtain leisure even to eat. His fame as a teacher and worker of miracles had spread abroad, and vast numbers sought to see Him and to be taught or cured by Him. Meanwhile He had become the object of the growing hostility of the religious teachers of the nation, and His popularity and miracles were viewed with malignant eyes by some who came from Jerusalem. Unable to deny the reality of His miracles, they suggested that they were wrought through His alliance with Satan. It would seem that information regarding our Lord's ceaseless enthusiasm and energy, and possibly, too, regarding the charge of complicity with Satan made by the Pharisees, reached the ears of Mary and her children in Nazareth. Unable to explain His actions, they leant to the conclusion that His mind had given way. Only thus could they account for the crowds He allowed to assemble round Him, and for His neglect of the most obvious rules of health, to say nothing of His disregard of the hostility of the Pharisees. The spiritual passion by which He was Page 48 inspired was taken by them to be a nervous excitement denoting insanity.

Whether the suggestion that our Lord's brain was affected occurred first to the family or was made to them by others cannot be known. But it is possible that the news brought to them was accompanied by some such expression of opinion. Perhaps, too, the insinuation of the Pharisees, that He was in league with Satan, if reported to them, may have confirmed their belief that His reason had given way. For His own sake, therefore, it was necessary to place Him under restraint. His mind would recover its tone and balance if only He were living quietly with them again. The crisis was grave, and hence common action was required. Accordingly Mary and her sons, and probably, too, her daughters, set out from Nazareth for Capernaum in order to bring Him home with them.

It has here been taken for granted that the friends of Jesus (Mk 321) are identical with His mother and brethren (Mk 331). No ordinary reader considers that the friends and the mother and brethren should be distinguished. He concludes that the address of our Lord to the scribes from Jerusalem is interposed between the narrative of the statement made by His friends and the arrival of His mother and brothers, because it was actually delivered in the interval between these events. It is contended, however, that the incidents must be distinct, the first describing the language and conduct Page 49 of certain adherents of our Lord, and the second the action of our Lord's nearest relatives. The words spoken, the step taken by the adherents, are declared to be inconceivable in the case of our Lord's mother and brothers. In this connection there has been much discussion as to the force of the phrase rendered His friends,' and its significance has been regarded as decisive of the question in dispute. This, however, is not the case. The expression is neutral in character. It can designate Mary and the brothers and sisters of our Lord, but it can equally denote disciples more or less intimate. The decision of the question really turns on this : Is it probable that our Lord's mother and brothers could have spoken and acted in the manner here described? Have we such knowledge of their state of mind as entitles us to argue thus? Are we so acquainted with their views touching our Lord that we can say confidently that they could not have regarded His mind as unsettled? Besides, is there less difficulty in believing that our Lord's mother and brothers pronounced Him insane and took steps to take Him home with them, than in believing that such language was used and such action taken by mere adherents? The friends are admittedly not the Twelve. They are said to have belonged to an outer circle of disciples. Were such persons likely to form any such judgment? Would they not more naturally have been lost in admiration of our Lord's absorption in His task? Would they, believing our Lord to be a prophet or Page 50 the Messiah, have ventured to take the liberty of arresting Him? Further, the narrative of Mark alone enables us to comprehend the motives of our Lord's relatives. Refuse to identify the two incidents, and the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke as to the visit paid to Capernaum by our Lord's mother and brothers become altogether obscure. The purpose which brought them there, and the tone and substance of our Lord's reply, are a hopeless riddle. A rebuke so direct and severe, however tenderly spoken, presupposes just such language and conduct as Mark describes. On all grounds, then, the conclusion obviously suggested by the text of Mark, that the two incidents are one and the same, must be accepted. (Farrar, Life of Christ, i. 282, distinguishes the incidents, but makes those who came to arrest Him His kinsmen and immediate family. But why in this case separate the incidents? He also (i. 325) regards Lk 819 as different from Mt 1246, Mk 321 on account of the context. But was such an incident likely to occur a second time?)

Our Lord's mother and brothers were accompanied, according to some texts, by His sisters. If the reading be correct, it is full of significance. Our Lord's sisters almost certainly lived at Nazareth, and it would therefore seem that the news of His extraordinary labours and the popular rumours concerning Him, and possibly of the terrible charge brought against Him by the scribes from Jerusalem, had been carried to Nazareth, and that our Lord's Page 51 entire family believed it to be their duty to place Him under restraint in order to preserve His sanity. If, as is highly probable, the sisters were married women, the apprehension with which they viewed our Lord's action is only the graver. Nothing but the conviction that a crisis was impending, that the reason of their brother was in jeopardy, and that the family honour was at stake, could have induced them to act as they did.

When they arrived, our Lord was teaching in a house. His audience apparently consisted of disciples only. But their numbers were so great that it was impossible for Mary and her children to find admission. Unwilling to divulge the purpose for which they had come, they sent a message asking to speak with Him. It was passed from one to another, and at last reached our Lord in the form, " Thy mother and thy brothers without seek for Thee." There was nothing in the tone and substance of the request to create displeasure. But our Lord discerned intuitively their anxiety and their unbelief. His answer, so far as they were concerned, was a rebuke in the form of a general principle. " Who," He asked, " is My mother and My brothers? " Stretching out His hand and gazing on the crowd of disciples before Him, He exclaimed, " Behold My mother and My brothers! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother."

Whether or not our Lord, after speaking thus, Page 52 saw His mother and brothers, cannot be decided. But His reply must have made it perfectly plain to them that He resented and condemned their interference. However pure their motives, they had intruded into a province which was not theirs, and had sought to arrest the work which God had given Him to do. It cannot for a moment be supposed that He believed they were influenced by vanity or pride, or wished to be known as His relatives, or to exhibit their influence over Him. He knew that it was solicitude for His welfare that had brought them there. But He recognised at the same time the difference between their motives and ideals and His, and felt that the time had come when He must kindly but firmly make this difference plain to them and to others. He had no wish to slight them. Never was His heart fuller of affection, but He felt the supreme importance of doing the will of God, and how necessary it was that He should put aside and blame any interference with that will. Doubtless none of those who listened to His words imagined that He was wanting in respect or love for His relatives. But they could not fail to be thrilled with unwonted emotion when they perceived the force of the principle He laid down. As Jews they attached the highest importance to their nationality, many of them believing that their descent constituted of itself a claim upon God. Further, no obligations were in their eyes weightier or more imperative than those of children to their parents. Page 53 But they were now taught that spiritual ties were infinitely more important than the ties of race and kindred, and that relationship to the Messiah was based on likeness of disposition and not on blood. The mother and brothers of the Messiah had no unique privilege. Every one who was willing to obey God could stand in as intimate a relation to Him as His mother, and brothers, and sisters. It was impossible for our Lord to expound more plainly His conviction of the absolute supremacy of the will of God over His own life and the lives of others, and the consequent superiority of spiritual ties to those of blood.

It is plain from this incident that not only our Lord's brothers and sisters, but even Mary herself did not understand Him. Our Lord would never have referred so pointedly to His mother had she not been as active in the movement to arrest Him as her children. It is manifest that, even though she doubtless believed Him to be the Messiah, she could still cherish the opinion that His mind had been overtaxed. Her view that He was the Messiah was perfectly compatible with the opinion that He was not invariably engaged in the Messiah's work. She evidently believed that what He was doing at this time was no part of His task as the Messiah. The brothers doubtless did not cherish her conviction that He was the Messiah, and consequently they would have still less difficulty than she had in concluding that His reason had given way. Page 54 An incidental but most important reference to our Lord's home is contained in the account of a visit to Nazareth (Mk 61-6 Mt 1354-5s). This visit to Nazareth must be distinguished from that described in Lk 416. For the two narratives, while similar in certain respects, differ widely in others, and these the most important. Examination shows that our Lord on the one occasion is but entering on His public life, whereas on the other He appears in the fulness of His reputation. The motives which induced our Lord to pay a second visit to Nazareth are easily understood. Notwithstanding the attempt to kill Him made on the occasion of His first visit, notwithstanding, too, the rejection of His claims by His nearest relatives, He cherished a warm affection for the village in which He had been brought up, and a still intenser love for the members of His family circle. He doubtless wished to enjoy the solace and delight of intercourse with His friends, as well as to offer again to His fellow-citizens that gospel of which He was at once the preacher and the substance. The time of the visit cannot be fixed with absolute certainty. But it took place before our Lord's popularity had begun to wane. It was apparently when His fame was at its height that, accompanied by His disciples, He returned to the village from which He derived His name of Nazarene. On His arrival He doubtless sought and found hospitality under His mother's roof. It has frequently been assumed that His mother and her sons had by this time gone to live in Capernaum. But for this Page 55 supposition there is no conclusive evidence, and the reference made by our Lord on this occasion to His own home rather suggests that His mother and brothers were still resident in Nazareth. Nor does the reference to the sisters as living in Nazareth necessarily imply that the brothers did not live there too. Such an interpretation is possible, but is not required. What, now, was the character of our Lord's relations with His mother and brothers on this occasion? Was the visit a source of unmixed joy to Him or to them? That strong personal love between them still existed, cannot be questioned. But that the shadow of distrust and even of estrangement had fallen upon them, is not less true. On the subject that lay nearest to our Lord's heart there could not be absolute confidence between them, for as yet His claims to be the Messiah were not admitted by them. His wisdom, His miracles, His success had not convinced them that He was the Messiah. Their attitude was that of doubt rather than of unbelief. They could not deny, but they could not affirm, that He was the Messiah. Their minds were in a state of vacillation. They would gladly have believed in Him, but meanwhile could not. Their attitude could hardly have remained unknown to their fellow-townsmen, and may in part have been produced by the sentiments which they knew were held within the village. As our Lord's visit to the village was not merely to find rest and quiet, and to see His relatives, but also to preach the gospel, He took advantage of the opportunity Page 56 afforded by the public worship of the Synagogue and the Sabbath to address His assembled townsmen. The subject on which He spoke has not been recorded; but it doubtless bore on the kingdom which He had come to set up. Whether it contained any reference to Himself cannot be determined. The grace, the wisdom, the authority with which He spoke powerfully impressed His hearers. The majority were surprised at the language He used and also at the miracles which common report declared He wrought, and began to ask what was the source from which His endowments came, and what was their true nature. They had undoubtedly been given Him, but by whom? How came He to be unlike His brothers and sisters? He had been a carpenter : He was the son of Mary, and the brother of James, and Joses, and Jude, and Simon. His sisters also were among them. None of these possessed exceptional qualifications or had achieved exceptional distinction. Whence, then, had Jesus gained His wisdom and His miraculous powers? Blinded by envy, they could not understand how one of themselves, with no advantages, educated among them, the disciple of no famous Rabbi, should suddenly have become one of the most prominent and distinguished persons in the land, and should be regarded by many as actually the Messiah. His power as a teacher and worker of miracles could not be questioned. His words and acts spoke for themselves. Such powers must be derived from some source. They could not be accounted for by the past Page 57 life of Jesus. They were certainly not derived from any great living teacher. Whence, then, had they come? Were they His honestly? Were they used by Him for proper ends? Might He not be other than He professed to be? Such difficulties filled them with perplexity and indignation. Unwilling to admit Him to be what His words and acts fairly interpreted proclaimed Him, they took offence at Him and declined to receive His message. Instead of regarding His career as reflecting the highest honour on their village, instead of confessing that He was a prophet and messenger of God, they insinuated to one another that the mystery attending the origin of His powers was such as to make their source more than questionable.

It is possible that whispers to this effect passed from lip to lip after our Lord had finished His address. At any rate their attitude, their gestures, their expression taught our Lord that He had spoken in vain. Accordingly He felt compelled to repeat the declaration He had made on the occasion of His former visit, " A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own honse." These words of our Lord's (Mk 64) illustrate strikingly the extent of the unbelief of His fellow-townsmen. Even His kinsmen, even the members of His own family, had not received Him as a prophet. From this language it is apparent that the nearest relatives of our Lord remained in unbelief. His visit was ineffectual so far as their conversion was concerned. Further, the frame of mind of the Nazarenes, their hostility, or, Page 58 at any rate, their distrust, rendered it impossible for Him to perform among them those miraculous cures which He would gladly have wrought. One of the conditions of these cures was faith, and that faith existed only among a few, and apparently but to a limited extent. He was only able to lay His hands on a few sick folk and heal them. The unbelief of His fellow-townsmen filled our Lord with profound surprise. He had expected to be received differently. He had cherished the hope that now that His fame was established His message might have been welcomed, and that such faith would have been reposed in Him as the Founder of the kingdom of God that He would have been able to make full use of His miraculous resources. To His astonishment His reception was cold and even hostile, and He was therefore morally unable to perform the acts of healing and of mercy He had contemplated.

The last mention of the brothers of our Lord in the Gospels is in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles preceding His death, 2 9th October (Jn 73). By this time our Lord had ceased to be popular. The manner in which He had rejected the crown that would have been thrust upon Him had alienated the great body of His adherents in Galilee. It might then have been supposed that He would have gone into Judaea to see whether He could achieve better results there. But this was impossible, because the authorities were eager to compass His death. Hence our Lord, unwilling Page 59 to precipitate His fate, remained in Galilee. At the preceding Passover He had not gone up to the metropolis, and it appeared that He had no intention of repairing thither at this feast. This conduct was inexplicable to our Lord's brothers. It seemed to them most unwise. Accordingly, they counselled Him to go up to the capital and there announce Himself as the Messiah. Only in Jerusalem could the Messianic kingdom be inaugurated. There and there only could His title to be the Messiah

be tested and determined. His disciples from all quarters of the land would be found at the festival. And if they only witnessed the miracles that He was performing in comparative privacy in Galilee they would undoubtedly declare in His favour. If Jesus wished to be accepted as the Messiah, the miracles He wrought should be done in the face of the world. To profess to be the Messiah and to work miracles known only to a few, was to act inconsistently. A wise man did nothing in secret which he wished to be openly known. It is expressly said by John that our Lord's brothers in giving this advice did not believe in Him (75). No doubt the motives influencing the brothers were of the most honourable kind. To attribute to them, as has sometimes been done, malice or treachery or even vanity, is to treat them unjustly. They

were solicitous for His honour and theirs. They wished their own doubts set at rest. His miracles formed the ground of faith in Him. They should Page 60 then be wrought in the most public manner, and thus the whole nation would be brought to admit His claims. It is not necessary to suppose that our Lord's miracles were less open than before. What the brothers desired was that they should be performed at the national festival now approaching, where they could be seen and estimated by all. Their Brother's action on so small and contracted a scale was to them incomprehensible. True wisdom dictated that He should quit Galilee for Jerusalem, work miracles there, and so announce Himself to the whole Jewish people as the Messiah.

It is plain from the language of John that the unbelief of the brothers was a surprise to him when he wrote the Gospel. Our Lord's brothers might naturally have been expected to be among the earliest of His disciples. Their familiarity with His character and life was unrivalled. None knew so well His utter unselfishness, His stainless purity, His absolute obedience to the will of God. Besides, their opportunities of witnessing His miracles were also great. How then is their unbelief to be explained? Doubtless their very intimacy with our Lord blinded them to His real greatness. It never occurred to James or his brothers or sisters that Jesus was so very different from themselves. Probably they never realised that He was sinless or perfect, still less that He was the Redeemer of man and Himself God.

Again, His life and teaching caused them much Page 61 perplexity. His ideals and methods were other than theirs. His view of the kingdom of God, His conception of the functions of the Messiah, and of the means by which the kingdom was to be established, were wholly different from theirs. In common with the rest of the nation they believed that the Messiah was to be a great national hero who was to throw off the yoke of Rome, set Himself on the throne of David in Jerusalem, and wield there the sceptre which would determine the destinies of all the nations of the earth. The Messiah of popular expectation was a warrior king. Accordingly the peaceful career of our Lord generated doubts in the minds even of those most favourably disposed towards Him. The originality of His teaching, its purity and elevation, and even its extraordinary power and authority, could not dispel these doubts. If He were the Messiah, He would certainly make some effort to rally the nation to His standard in order to destroy the hated domination of Rome. Further, the members of our Lord's family, just because of their ordinary education and low social rank, were the more dependent on the judgment of others, and hence were strongly affected by the doubts so widely felt regarding His claims.

The reply of our Lord to the counsel of His brothers reveals the cleavage existing between their modes of thought and His. He doubtless recognised that the advice given Him was well intentioned and friendly. He did full justice to their motives, but Page 62 He felt that it was impossible to comply with their request. This impossibility He made plain by stating that the attitude of the world to Him was altogether different from its attitude to them. They were at all times free to go up to Jerusalem or not. They would encounter no danger when there, for they thought and spoke and acted like the rest of their fellow-countrymen. The world and they were on excellent terms, for they belonged to the world. Hence the world could not hate them. But it hated Him, and the ground of its hatred was that He bore witness to the evil which it tolerated and cherished. Wherever He went He came into collision with it, because its motives and purposes were alien to the will of God. He was compelled to denounce its moral standard, its modes of thought, its aspirations, its achievements. Its works He condemned as evil because not in accordance with the will of God. Such condemnation elicited the hostility of the world. The time of His manifestation was not yet come. He would show Himself to the world. He would proclaim Himself in the capital as the Messiah. But in doing so He must select the proper moment.

Our Lord's brothers cannot have comprehended His answer fully. Had they understood His words, they would doubtless have been appalled by the revelation which they gave of the consequence of acting on their counsel. When their brother revealed Himself in Jerusalem as the Messiah, it Page 63 was to enter on the way to His death. The cross of Calvary was the throne of David.

No plainer indication of the state of mind of our Lord's brothers, within six months of His death, could be given than that furnished by His assertion " that they were of the world." This clearly proves that as yet they did not believe in His mission or accept His teaching. They may have wished to do so. Perhaps they would gladly have believed in Him; but believe in Him they did not.

Jesus remained in Galilee; the brothers went to the feast. They heard His pretensions discussed on every side. Opinion was strongly divided regarding Him. But the populace hesitated to avow openly their convictions, whether hostile or favourable, until the hierarchy had spoken. What effect the visit to the Feast of Tabernacles had upon the brothers is unknown. Probably they quitted the capital in much the same state of mind as they entered it.

These are the only passages in the Gospels which refer to our Lord's brothers. The circumstance that James is never mentioned apart from the rest is plainly significant. Had he been other than they, had his views or practices been separate, some notice of this would almost certainly have been preserved. The fact that none of our Lord's brothers is distinguished from the rest, shows that so long as He lived they were practically one in sentiment and mode of life.

No further reference is made to the brothers of our Lord in the Gospels, and accordingly it is impossible Page 64to say what view they took of the later stages of our Lord's career. It is not probable that their opinions underwent any change. They continued in suspense to the last moment of His life, and His execution probably served to extinguish the last gleams of the hope that He might be the Messiah. Whether they were in Jerusalem at that event is a point as to which evidence is wanting. There is nothing in the Gospels which indicates their presence. Not much stress can be laid on the argument that as pious Jews they would be sure to repair to the capital at the Passover, as this practice, though general, was not rigidly observed. Nor can any unquestionable conclusions be drawn from the fact that our Lord when dying committed His mother to the care of John. This action is undoubtedly more easily understood if the brothers were absent from Jerusalem for a time. But it might have been taken even though they, like Mary and John, had been standing by the Cross. As there is, then, no positive proof that the brethren were in Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion, it is improper to take for granted, as has been often done, that they were there. (Plumptre, James, 21, believes that the brethren were present at the Crucifixion.) But to affirm confidently that they were absent is equally inadmissible.

Our Lord when dying entrusted His mother to the charge of John. What light is cast by this action on the relations between His mother, His brothers, Page 65 and Himself? The step, it has been argued, is a demonstration that the brothers were not the children of Mary. Our Lord could not have commanded John to become a son to Mary had James and his brothers been her sons. Such action is hardly credible in itself, and is rendered still less credible by the circumstance that the brothers immediately became Christians, and are mentioned as present in Jerusalem along with Mary after the Ascension. Could our Lord, it is asked, have snapt asunder the most sacred ties of natural affection and committed His mother to the care of a stranger while her sons were living in the same city? (Lightfoot, Gal. 264-5). These considerations are weighty, but cannot disprove the testimonies which show that the brothers of the Lord were the children of Mary. Besides, they tell almost as powerfully against the opinion that they were step-brothers as against the opinion that they were full brothers. For the manner in which Mary is spoken of along with the brothers proves that the ties between them were of the strongest and tenderest. They invariably treated her as their mother and regarded themselves as her sons. Why, then, did our Lord pass over such step-brothers and entrust His mother to a so-called stranger? Is not this conduct almost as inexplicable on the Epiphanian as on the Helvidian theory? The difficulty is real and great on any hypothesis, when the relations between Mary and the brothers as set forth in the Gospels are borne in mind. Nor is it greatly diminished on the Page 66 assumption that tho stranger was our Lord's nephew, the son of Salome, and the nearest relative by blood of our Lord. For obviously, according to the Gospels, the brethren of our Lord stood in a much closer relation to Mary than John did. Moreover, on this view, John had a mother of his own, who may also, like Mary, have been a widow. Why, then, was Mary given as a mother to a disciple who had a mother of his own, and who may possibly have been a widow living under his roof? Probably the motive which governed our Lord was love for His mother. No distrust or disapproval of His brothers mingled with that love. Were all the facts known, the step would appear natural and befitting. Mary might have been able to obtain in the house of John comfort, quiet, and attention otherwise beyond her reach. The brothers of the Lord were probably married. If John were unmarried, what more becoming than that Mary should spend the rest of her life with him? Why should not the two persons who apparently enjoyed most of our Lord's affection have been given to one another by our Lord? Besides, is it not possible to make too much of the ties of natural affection,' in this matter? Is it certain that our Lord would have granted a supreme place to mere relationship? Would He not have subordinated the ties of blood to the higher consideration of what was best for His mother and for all concerned? It may then be concluded that the committal of Mary to John is no Page 67 proof that the relations between her and her sons were changed for the worse. Mother and sons were still as dear to one another as before. It was the same with the brothers of Jesus. He did not deem them unworthy or unfit to take charge of His mother, but He knew that in the house of John she would be better provided for than anywhere else.

It has already been suggested that the Crucifixion destroyed any hopes that our Lord's brothers may have cherished that He was the Messiah. His death was the verdict of God on His claims. However highly they honoured His character, however keenly they resented His unjust sentence, they could not but esteem it impossible to hold now that He was the Messiah. The faith even of the Apostles was shattered by His execution, how much more that of the brothers who had never owned His claims I Moreover, the notion of a resurrection was still more foreign to the minds of the brothers than to those of the Apostles.

Jesus rose from the dead, and among those to whom He appeared was James (1 Co 157). It would seem as if this were among the last of our Lord's appearances during the forty days. The place cannot be determined. It may have been Galilee; it may have been Jerusalem. If James was not in Jerusalem at the Passover, the place was probably somewhere in Galilee, possibly Nazareth. This appearance to James is the only one not made to a known believer. Had Page 68 any rumours of the resurrection previously reached James? Had he learned that Jesus had appeared to His disciples in Jerusalem? Did his mother inform him that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead and had spoken with the Twelve? Had his doubts begun to give way? Had they vanished, or was lie still in perplexity? Whatever his state of mind, he soon received personal confirmation of the resurrection. His Brother appeared to him. Only the fact is recorded. What would we not give for even a few fragments of the conversation then held? How gentle the blame with which our Lord censured His brother for his unbelief! How deep that brother's self-reproach and shame! that he of all others should not have recognised the Messiah! that kinsmen and strangers should have had keener spiritual discernment than himself! that he should have been deaf and blind to the evidence that persnaded them!—and such evidence! If he had only weighed it as he should! The interview dispelled for ever his own conception of the Messiah, and rendered him thenceforward a whole-hearted and energetic Christian.

The opinion that James owed his conversion to an appearance of the risen Lord has been disputed on the ground that our Lord appeared to believers only, not to unbelievers; and it has been suggested that his unbelief gave way when he heard from Mary his mother and from the Apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead (Dale, Epistle of James, 5). This opinion is quite tenable, because, in the absence of Page 69 any report as to the conversion of James, we are left to weigh probabilities, and the explanation that he was led by the testimony of his mother and the Apostles to abandon his unbelief is in no way improbable. At the same time, it is not more worthy of acceptance, probably less so, than the view commonly adopted. The general law to which it appeals, that our Lord after His resurrection manifested Himself only to those who had already believed on Him, is not laid down in Scripture, and is a mere inference from His appearances as recorded there. For anything known to the contrary, the case of James may have differed from all the other cases mentioned. That the principle is not absolute is shown by the appearance of our Lord to Paul, an instance which cannot be detached from the rest, for Paul himself treats it as similar. If our Lord, then, appeared to Paul to create faith, He may have acted in the same way towards James. If James still doubted even after he had heard of the resurrection, what more signal proof of his Brother's love for him and desire that he should be His could have been given than a special manifestation of Himself such as He vouchsafed to Peter? It is easier to explain the appearance to James on the hypothesis that he was an unbeliever than on the hypothesis that he was a believer : all the more as, unlike the others to whom our Lord appeared, he was probably not a believer until after the resurrection. A manifestation of our Lord to produce faith is more probable than one to strengthen faith; for what James Page 70 needed was to be convinced of the resurrection. Once sure of this fact, his faith became as a rock.

An account of our Lord's appearance to James is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and has frequently been regarded as embodying an authentic tradition. The originality and simplicity of the narrative are pronounced not unworthy of the genuine Gospels (Mayor, James, xxxvii). The passage which deserves careful examination is, with Jerome's explanatory observations, as follows (de Vir. Illust. 2): " The Gospel entitled according to the Hebrews, which I lately translated into Greek and Latin, and which Origen often quotes, contains the following narrative after the resurrection. Now the Lord, when He had given the cloth to the servant of the priest, went to James and appeared to him. For James had taken an oath that he would not eat bread from that hour on which he had drunk the cup of the Lord till he saw Him risen from the dead. Again a little afterwards the Lord says, Bring a table and bread. Immediately it is added : He took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him, My brother, eat thy bread; for the Son of Man has risen from the dead.' "

What opinion should be formed of this narrative? Is it trustworthy? The principal statement which it makes is that James took the vow described. Is it reasonable or possible to believe that he made any such vow? The vow is plainly the expression of a triumphant faith in the future resurrection of our Page 71 Lord. Now, that James believed in our Lord at the date of the Supper is contrary to all the evidence we possess. Yet he is not only represented as a believer, but as possessing a faith to which Peter and the Apostles were utter strangers. So certain is he that the resurrection is near, that he will vow not to eat again till it is accomplished. It is needless to point out how utterly contradictory to the Gospels is this representation of the mood and expectations of any of those who partook of the Last Supper. The account of the vow from first to last is fiction, and fiction which utterly misconceives the situation of our Lord and His Apostles at the time. The terms of the alleged vow are chiefly taken from our Lord's words regarding Himself, " I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall come " (Lk 2218), and placed in the lips of James. The passage, then, contains not a genuine tradition, but a pure fabrication. This conclusion regarding the main assertion of the narrative is confirmed by a close examination of the other assertions which it makes. It takes for granted, in contradiction to the entire New Testament, that the appearance to James was either the first or one of the first made to any person (Zahn, Einl. i. 78, holds that it is represented as the first to any one). Further, the handing of the grave-clothes to the servant of the priest, probably Malchus, betrays the purely apocryphal nature of the story. Still more incredible is the statement that James was present at the Last Supper. This view rests on the Page 72 assumption that James was one of the Twelve, a view which cannot be reconciled with the declarations of Scripture, and is at variance with the oldest Palestinian traditions regarding him, as reported by Hegesippus. This difficulty is so insuperable that some scholars believe that the original text referred to our Lord's death and not to the institution of the Eucharist (Lightfoot, Gal. 266; Harnack, Chron. 650), and argue in favour of the reading : biberat calicem Dominus. But this reading and interpretation are both precarious. The position of ' Dominus' is unusual. And it is questionable whether such a Gospel as that to the Hebrews would have employed a figurative designation of our Lord's death. Further, the references to the table, the placing and the breaking of bread, undoubtedly suggest that the incident referred to is the institution of the Lord's Supper and not the death of Christ. It is further urged (Lightfoot, l.c.) that even though the writer represented James as present at the Last Supper, it does not follow that he regarded him as one of the Twelve. This conclusion is not impossible, but it is unlikely, because no other except the Twelve are stated to have been present at the Last Supper. It is, of course, conceivable that the writer may have regarded him as present, along with the Twelve, on account of his high dignity.

Accordingly, no credence is to be attached to the statements of the Gospel according to the Hebrews regarding James. Its divergence from other authorities Page 73 is so great as to deprive it of any historical value. This would be the case even though it were composed as early as between 70 and 100 (Harnack, Charon. 650). Such a date is not supported by any evidence of value; but, even though it were established, the trustworthiness of the statements would need to be rejected and the narrative pronounced a fabrication. It is inconceivable that an account composed at Pella among Christians, shortly after the death of James, should have given so erroneous a report of many of the most certain facts in the early history of Christianity. How could Jewish Christians shortly after the death of James have represented him as present at the Last Supper? How could they have described him as one of the Twelve? How could they, against the evidence of all the Gospels, have described him as a Christian? And, to crown all, how could they have described hint as not only a Christian, but as confident that Jesus would rise again?

Even though the opinion be adopted that the incident referred to is our Lord's death and not the Last Supper, James is still on this hypothesis a Christian and a believer in the resurrection. Yet the Gospels show no trace of his presence among the Christians in Jerusalem. He is never mentioned as near the Cross. He is not named with the women to whom our Lord appeared, or with the Apostles. His Brother's manifestation to him is amongst the latest and not among the earliest of His appearances, Page 74 while to the story told by the author it is vital that Jesus should have first appeared to him. If an early date, then, must be assigned to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the work must be declared a mere fiction. For the hypothesis that it embodies an independent and possibly trustworthy tradition regarding the resurrection and our Lord's appearance to James is discredited by its contents. It may be pronounced certain that no such tradition could have existed among the Jewish Christians of the Holy Land, for the traditions existing among them are embodied in our present Gospels. Who can believe that a Gospel describing the resurrection itself, and representing the guard placed at the grave as friendly to our Lord, contains what was the accepted belief among Jewish Christians between 70 and 100?

An attempt has been made to preserve what are alleged to be the main facts of the tradition contained in the passage from the Gospel to the Hebrews. According to this representation, James, convinced by the reports which reached him concerning the resurrection, bound himself by an oath not to eat or drink until he too had seen the Lord (Farrar, Early Christianity). What is this but to rationalise the tradition? It certainly removes from it all that is incredible, but in doing so transforms its character and deprives it of all interest. The essence of the tradition is the faith of James and its reward, but this revised version rejects the alleged faith.

The source of the legendary story is doubtless the Page 75 statement of Paul that our Lord appeared to James (1 Co 157). A Jewish Christian writer expanded this statement into a story which extolled James as the most splendid instance of faith in our Lord's resurrection.

Whether the writer was conscious how widely he departed from the truth of history cannot be known. But it is hardly doubtful that he found his starting-point in the narrative of Paul. This opinion has been rejected on the ground that the Nazarenes did not read the letters of Paul (Zahn, Gesch, d. Kan. ii. 716), and the writer is said to have derived his knowledge from oral tradition. But is it certain that the Nazarenes did not possess the letters of Paul, and that they were wholly unacquainted with their contents? To reject the authority of certain books is one thing, to make no use of their contents is quite another. What is the value of an oral tradition which is notorio