SECTION XIII

the family relations of Jesus

Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus, must undoubtedly have died between the first journey of Jesus to Jerusalem and His first entrance upon His public ministry,—that is, between his twelfth and thirtieth years. For on that journey he was still accompanying Mary; while in the history of Christ’s public life he is nowhere met with, not even at the marriage of Cana. More definite information concerning the time of his departure is hardly to be obtained. No artizan ever peformed so great things as he. He is the prince of craftsmen; unless, indeed, Christ, of whom tradition says that He worked in wood, and whom even the Nazarenes called (according to Mar 6:3) the carpenter, were so Himself. But we shall return to this question.

After Joseph’s death, Mary was not left alone with Jesus. His brethren are often spoken of in the Gospels,¹ and in a connection which plainly shows that they formed one family with Mary and Joseph. According to Joh 2:12, His brethren accompanied Him, together with Mary and His disciples, from Nazareth to Capernaum. They are placed before His disciples, for Jesus had not as yet assumed any public character. Mary and His brethren seem to have accompanied Him in the character of His domestic circle. Still greater prominence is given to this circle in the scene (Mar 3:20), where He is occupied with the multitudes in the full activity of His ministry, and His adversaries are already opposing Him with undisguised malice. His friends, or His family (οἱ παρʼ αὐτοῦ), it is said, went out to lay hold on Him, for they said, He is beside Himself. Undoubtedly, these persons were the same of whom it is said, ver. 32, Thy mother and Thy brethren without seek for Thee.

In what relation, then, did Jesus stand to these brethren?

To answer this question is a perplexing task; since the hints which must decide it are but scantily given in the New Testament. The matter, too, which is difficult enough in itself, has been still further perplexed by various and opposing dogmatic prepossessions. From the midst of this confusion, however, four chief hypotheses appear.

The first explanation of the circumstance, supposes that these brethren of Jesus were His own brothers on the mother’s side; sons of the marriage of Joseph and Mary, born after Jesus. The expression, brethren (ἀδελφοί), whose constant use in pointing out family connections, at all events, suffers us to infer brotherly relationship in a narrower sense, favours this view.² Besides, it is said (Mat 1:25) of Mary, Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son; and (Luk 2:7) she brought forth her first-born son. The remark on the connection between Joseph and Mary, seems to point to subsequent marital association; the appellation, her first-born son, seems to relate to brothers born subsequently. This view is especially favoured by Protestants, in opposition to the Romish veneration of Mary, and declaration of her perpetual virginity.

The opposite view understands by the brethren of Jesus His cousins. It arises from the general assumption, that the word brother was often used by the Hebrews in a wider sense, and consequently included the ἀνεψιός, the cousin or relation. It finds, however, a safer starting-point in the passage, Joh 19:25. Here, according to the prevailing view of the passage, Mary the wife of Cleophas, is represented as sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. We cannot, however, avoid considering the names Cleophas and Alpheus identical, when so pressing an occasion for doing so as this occurs.³ For the same Mary is, in Mat 27:56, spoken of as the mother of James and Joses. Now, there was among the disciples one bearing the name of James the son of Alpheus, James the son of this Mary. But if Joses were his brother, as appears also from Mar 15:40, we have already two of the names appearing in the list of Jesus’ brethren. We have next to consider the circumstance, that the author of the Epistle of Jude calls himself the servant of Jesus Christ, the brother of James. He is undoubtedly the same who is mentioned by Luke in the apostolic catalogue as Jude the brother of James. This James, however, cannot be James the Great, since he is always connected with his brother John. But if he were James the Less, Jude, as well as James and Joses, is also a son of Alpheus. Now the brethren of Jesus are called James, Joses,⁴ Juda, and Simon (Mar 6:3). If, then, we here introduce the information of Eusebius and Hegesippus, that Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, who suffered martyrdom under Trajan, was a son of Cleophas, we have four sons of Cleophas who bear the same names as the brethren of Jesus. Thus the brethren of Jesus were His cousins.

The third view is, that Joseph had been married before his espousal to Mary, and that it is the children of this marriage whom Matthew and Mark call the brethren of Jesus. This view is founded upon apocryphal legends. According to some of these legends,⁵ Joseph is said to have had a wife named Esha; according to others, Salome; and to have had by her four sons, James, Joses, Simon, and Juda, and two daughters, Esther and Thamar; according to others, Mary and Salome, the mother of Zebedee’s children. This opinion was defended by many fathers and theologians, especially by Origen and Grotius. It has been remarked against it, that it seems to have arisen from merely doctrinal prejudices, viz., for the sake of harmonizing the scriptural account of the brothers and sisters of Jesus with notions of the immaculate purity of Mary. But, at any rate, it explains, in a simple manner, on one hand, the family relationship of these four brethren to Jesus, and, on the other, the circumstance that they nowhere appear in the Gospel in the intimate relation of own brethren to Him, and especially that the names of his sisters are not once mentioned.

Finally, the references in the Gospels, of James the Less to his father Alpheus, of Mary the wife of Cleophas to her sons James and Joses, of the Jude who wrote the Epistle bearing his name to James, have caused others to regard the four brethren of Jesus and their sisters as children of Mary the wife of Cleophas and of Joseph, through a Levirate marriage, for the purpose of raising up seed; to the childless Cleophas, the brother of Joseph. Theophylact, among others, supported this view. This would very well explain why only James should be decidedly mentioned as the son of Alpheus, while the rest of the brethren and sisters of Jesus are not so described. But as Schaf rightly remarks, the absurdity and unfitness of a double marriage on Joseph’s part, speaks against this view. In this case, Joseph would have been husband at the same time to the widow of his brother and to the mother of Jesus, for there seems no reason to suppose that he had separated from the latter.

Not wishing to bestow too large a space upon this question, we but briefly communicate the result of our view of the family relations of Jesus, accompanied by a statement of the reasons which have determined it.

That Mary lived after the birth of Jesus in marital intercourse with Joseph, in the stricter sense, seems to result from the passage cited. It cannot, however, be certainly concluded from it, since it only directly denies the fact of such intercourse having taken place before the birth of Christ.⁶ The designation of her son as the first-born, seems to be an emphatic expression, by no means intended to point out that she afterwards had other sons. The Evangelist could not here have been thinking of these sons, if she had had them. The uniqueness of this child wholly filled his mind. Christ is the first-born of the new human race, or rather the prince-born of mankind, and of the world. Paul calls Him so (Col 1:15), and why should not the Evangelist also thus name Him in a New Testament sense? The evangelical expression concerning the birth of Christ runs thus in Luk:⁷ ἔτεκε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸνυ πρωτότοκον.. With Vater we read αὑτῆς, and translate, she brought forth her son, who was her own, the first-begotten.

The Romish Church denies the sexual intercourse of the holy couple, in order to preach the perpetual virginity of Mary. Even Joseph is raised to the condition of perpetual virginity.⁸ We do not entertain those doctrinal prejudices which require such a view; and for this reason, that the ethic notion of virginity stands higher with us than the physical. The view of virginity which cannot rise above the physical notion, has led to many coarse discussions and definitions. But though in this inquiry we may insist on laying special weight upon Mary’s frame of mind, though we conceive that her state of heavenly inspiration raised her far above the region of matrimonial relations, yet we must not forget that Mary was the wife of Joseph. She was, according to a ratified engagement, dependent upon her husband’s will.

But it would be only upon the strongest testimony that we could admit that Mary became the mother of other children after the birth of Christ. No doctrinal grounds, in a narrower sense, prepossess us against this admission, but religio-philosophical and physical considerations, which indeed indirectly form themselves into doctrinal ones, inasmuch as all views must terminate in one christological view. As a wife, Mary was subject to wifely obligations; but, as a mother, she had fulfilled her destiny with the birth of Christ. The sacred organism of this woman, which had once contained the germ of the new humanity, which creative omnipotence had, by a stroke of heavenly influence, made to bring forth the manifestation of eternal life, was independent of the will of man and his fluctuations. And even for the very sake of nature’s refinement, we cannot but imagine that this organism, which had borne the Prince of the new æon, would be too proudly or too sacredly disposed, to lend itself, after bringing forth the life of Christ, to the production of more common births for the sphere of the old æon.

A glance, too, into the Gospel history, will convince us that it is very improbable that Jesus had younger brothers and sisters. It is usual for a spirit like His to carry along with it the younger members of a family. From their first breath, they are under the influence of his superior force of character. If, then, Jesus had had brethren younger than Himself, we might expect that they would have surrendered themselves to Him with enthusiasm, and not have given Him anxiety as dissentients. We find, however, exactly the reverse. The brethren of Jesus seem, with relation to Him, to have early taken up the position of decided Jews. Their unbelief, mentioned by John (chap. 7:3, 6), has indeed been too much smoothed over. That they intended to deride Him, is indeed not to be imagined. They were probably unbelieving in a similar sense to those Jews who wanted to make Him a king (Joh 6:15), i.e., without submission to His self-determination, without obedience. They could not reconcile themselves to his rule of life, but wanted Him to realize their Messianic notions. Nor would younger own brothers of Jesus, and children of Mary, have brought Mary herself into a dissentient position, and have ventured to give themselves the appearance of acting in concert with His mother, in their desire to restrain Him in His activity. But if we accept the view that these brethren were, some of them at least, older than Jesus, we cannot fail to remember that journey from the Passover in which His parents missed the child Jesus. For they lost Him through their assumption that He was among his kinsfolk and acquaintances (ἐν τοῖς συγγενέσι καὶ ἐν τοῖς γνωστοῖς, Luk 2:44). Here relations are certainly spoken of as distinct from friends and acquaintances, and indeed from boy-relatives; since, as has been shown, we must suppose a separate train of boys. These boys must have been older than twelve, since those who were younger were left at home. Since, then, we certainly know of the existence of brethren of Jesus, and have found occasion to suppose that some of them were older than He, we are obliged to conclude that they were either His half-brothers or cousins, for Mary had, in any case, no elder sons.

We now turn to the passage Joh 19:25, to obtain information concerning the sister of Christ’s mother. It is here said: There stood by the cross of Jesus, His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. According to the usual interpretation, three women are here named, while the sister of Jesus’ mother is further designated the wife of Cleophas. On the other hand, however, Wieseler offers another interpretation.⁹ He points out, first, that the sentence may easily be so construed as to speak of four women: Mary the mother of Jesus, her sister, whose name is not stated, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. He then supposes this unnamed sister to have been Salome, the mother of Zebedee’s children. The arguments which he adduces in favour of this view, seem to us decisive. First, it is improbable that two sisters should both bear the name of Mary. Secondly, the statements of the two first Evangelists both lead to this view (Mat 27:56, comp. Mar 15:40); Matthew saying that the mother of Zebedee’s sons, and Mark that Salome was present at the crucifixion. John must at all events have been acquainted with this circumstance; and who could suppose that he would, in this passage, pass over his mother? But if he certainly has mentioned her, we can understand that he should maintain that same reserve of style with which he mentioned himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved. Thus also he designates his mother only in a periphrasis, by which he avoids pointing out his relation to her and mentioning her name. It is to this circumstance that we owe the information that Salome was a sister of Mary, and that consequently James and John, the sons of Zebedee, must be considered the cousins of Jesus. From this relationship Wieseler explains the circumstance, that these two brethren should unite with their mother in asking for the first places in the kingdom of Christ (Mat 20:20-28; Mar 10:35-45). Even Christ’s legacy on the cross, by which he delivered the care of Mary to John, becomes, according to Wieseler’s remark, still more comprehensible, when the relationship here pointed out is assumed.¹⁰

But perhaps it is of more importance, that this relationship confirms also the relationship of the family of Jesus to that of John the Baptist. It is among the Baptist’s disciples that we first meet with the Apostle John. It is he who has preserved to us the most significant utterances of the Baptist concerning Jesus. As an intimate of John, he was present at his answer to the deputation sent to him from Jerusalem, and this circumstance might have been the means of his becoming acquainted with the family of the high priest. All this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the theologic and christologic John must have been related to the Baptist; but when we learn elsewhere that Salome was a sister of Mary, and Mary a relation of Elisabeth, we obtain a view of a connection between these three families which may explain much.

We can then no longer esteem the sons of Alpheus as cousins of Jesus, on the supposition that the wife of Cleophas was a sister of Mary. Thus much, however, may be with certainty affirmed from a consideration of the group of women at the foot of the cross, that Mary the wife of Cleophas was very nearly related to the Lord and to His mother. But Hegesippus informs us, after Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 11), that Cleophas was a brother of Joseph. We have no positive reasons for rejecting this ancient historical testimony. We have already seen that many theologians have founded upon this information the hypothesis that Joseph was own father to the children of this Mary the wife of Cleophas, by having occupied the place of his deceased brother. The objection to this view has already been stated.

We may then preliminarily consider these enigmatical brethren of Jesus as sons of Cleophas. They were merely His cousins (ἀνεψιοί), and not His brothers. Nay, they were no blood-relations at all, but cousins-in-law. How, then, did they come under the designation of brethren? In the simplest manner possible. Cleophas probably died while his children were still young. And this would cause Joseph, who was, we are informed, a just Israelite, to take in the widow and her children, and to adopt the latter. Since, however, Joseph died while Jesus was yet young, as many of these adopted brothers of Jesus, who might rightly be named His brethren, as were older than He, would properly become the heads of this Nazarene household. These young Jews might long maintain their own will against the younger brother, with whom they were only legally connected. As elder members of His family, they might even desire to have Him under their direction, though their Jewish pride might already have rejoiced in His fame. Finally, such a Jewish family spirit might have prevailed among them, that even Mary, a dependent woman, might have been so far led away, as, on one occasion, to join with them in desiring to arrest her Son’s course. This took place during the second year of Christ’s ministry. Jesus was already obliged to send His disciples to Jerusalem alone, having first definitely chosen and set apart twelve. He already numbered two of His brethren among them, though the circumstance that they are mentioned last in every catalogue of the apostles, shows that they were, at any rate, among the last who entered the company.¹¹ They might nevertheless have attempted to check His course, as Peter subsequently did, when Jesus was about to enter upon His sufferings. Christ’s reproof of the untimely interference of His family by the words, ‘Behold My mother and My brethren;’ &c. (Mar 3:34), must be compared with the saying with which He rebuked Peter, ‘Get thee behind Me, Satan’ (Mat 16:23), if we would recognize the identity of the two positions, and, at the same time, comprehend that the brethren of Jesus, though still, when viewed in the light of the subsequent pentecostal season, unbelieving, i.e., self-willed and gloomy, could nevertheless be apostles. They were probably, in part at least, men of strong, firm natures.¹² Judas seems, in his unbending firmness, to have been the leading spirit of this Nazarene family, on which account, perhaps, the surname Lebbeus or Thaddeus, the courageous, the free-hearted, seems to have been given him.¹³ The Epistle of Jude needs only to be read, to recognize such a character in every line. In the school of Jesus, respect was had to the real nobility of peculiar gifts, even though they often manifested themselves in peculiar errors; hence the sons of Zebedee were named the sons of thunder, Simon called Peter, while Jude received the characteristic name of Lebbeus or Thaddeus. It is therefore now clear to us, that the remark concerning the unbelief of the brethren of Jesus is not opposed to the fact of their being included among the apostles, as related by the Evangelist, especially when we reflect that this family spirit of opposition to the Messianic progress of Christ might have reached its climax in the persons of Joses and Simon. But before regarding our conclusions as established, we must glance at those passages in the apostolic epistles which have been thought opposed to them.

It seems from the Epistle to the Galatians (chap. 1:19, 2:9 and 12), that a James was, together with Peter and John, held in the very highest esteem by the Church at Jerusalem, nay, that he represented, in a peculiar sense, the Jewish-Christian party. Now it has been supposed, that we may infer from the passages in question, that this James, as a brother of the Lord, is distinguished from the apostles. In conformity with this notion, some translate Gal 1:19, ‘I saw no other apostle than Peter, but yet I saw James.’ This is, however, at all events, a forced view; a simpler one leads to the translation, ‘other apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.’¹⁴ And the Epistle to the Galatians in general, when more strictly considered, offers evidence that this James could be no other than the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus. In its second chapter, the Apostle Paul designates him as one of the three apostolic men who were regarded as pillars of the Church. He appears to have been that apostolic individual upon whom the opponents of St Paul most relied. These opponents denied the apostolical authority of St Paul. They reproached him with having no historical mission (Gal 1:1), with not being appointed by Christ Himself, as the other apostles had been. They thus opposed his ecclesiastical legitimacy. Now it is in the highest degree improbable, that these early zealots for the succession theory should have opposed to St Paul the name of one who, in the sense in which they rejected Paul, was himself no legitimate apostle.¹⁵ The spirit of the Church at Jerusalem had not indeed become so carnal as to number one who was not an apostle among the apostles, merely on account of his brotherhood with Christ. In this case, Joses would also have been an apostle. But if James were an apostle, besides being a brother of the Lord, this latter fact would much enhance his credit, and the Jewish party might lay an emphasis on this appellation with a view of depressing the credit of Paul.

On careful consideration, then, of the inner meaning of this contrast, we cannot but esteem the James of the Jewish party to have been the Apostle James. The book of the Acts, too, leads to the same conclusion. In the list of the apostles, Act 1:13, we find the two well-known apostles of this name. The twelfth chapter relates the martyrdom of James the Great. Subsequently we find but one James spoken of (chap. 12:17, 15:13, 21:18). Now it is quite natural, that after one James had been removed from the scene, the designation, the son of Alpheus, should be omitted after the name of the other. But if a brother of the Lord had gradually attained great consideration, it is in the highest degree improbable that he should have meanwhile become an apostle, and still more so, that as an apostle he should have eclipsed this James, the son of Alpheus (whom we besides already know as the Lord’s brother). But it would be utterly impossible that his name should forthwith have become so exclusively renowned, that it should have no longer been found necessary to distinguish him from James the son of Alpheus, if the latter were distinct from him.

When, finally, we consider the two epistles which have been attributed to the brethren of the Lord, we find no fresh grounds for the view which distinguishes these relatives of Jesus from the apostles. It has been remarked, that James, in his epistle, does not call himself an apostle, but a servant of God and of Jesus Christ. In answer to this, it is replied, that St John also does not call himself an apostle in his epistle. Probably the choice of the words, a servant of Jesus Christ, may have been caused, in the cases of both James and Jude, by a feeling of humility, which impelled them thus strongly to express their spiritual dependence upon Christ, in contrast with that honourable title which they bore in the Church. The author of the Epistle of Jude ingeniously styles himself the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James. He seems to desire indirectly to designate himself as the brother of Jesus, though his heart impels him first to announce his dependence upon Him. The expression ‘of the holy apostles,’ ver. 17, cannot possibly be looked upon as excluding him from the apostles; for he is speaking of the apostles only in a very limited manner, viz., so far as they had beforehand announced to the Church that in the last days there should be dangerous mockers. All the apostles, as such, can hardly be spoken of here; and least of all can they be mentioned in contrast to Jude. That the whole epistle entirely corresponds with the character of Lebbeus or Thaddeus, has already been mentioned.¹⁶ Jesus, then, grew up in a remarkable household, which had been fashioned by the storms of life, by want, and by love. Two sisters-in-law of similar names were the matrons of the circle. The children of Cleophas, with whom Jesus lived as brothers and sisters, seem to have manifested the same upright, sensible, and decided kind of character which distinguished Joseph, but to have had but little mental riches or profundity. They were no blood-relations of Jesus. Without imputing direct blame to these relatives, or in any way impugning their sincerity and worth, we may say that the sorrows which the mother of Jesus and her Son may have experienced in such a circle, are written in their secret history. This connection was a sad, yet blessed necessity. Jesus, however, in His dying hour, felt it most suited to his mother’s feelings to give her John for a son. Paul was on the most friendly terms with the Lord’s brother, though his disposition formed the greatest contrast to his own.¹⁷ It was the advice of this James which brought about the catastrophe of his life. It was not without deliberation that the early Church received into the canon the epistles of the Lord’s brethren; and even Luther ventured upon a severe condemnation of the Epistle of James. It was certainly from no family partiality that Jesus made these temperate but sincere characters, James and Jude, pillars of His Church. He used them as instruments of spreading His Gospel, for those who were zealous for the law, not only in Israel, but in all the world; well knowing, that there were numbers who could only be reached by such instrumentality. But their special vocation was to watch against all dissoluteness and antinomianism; and these errors they opposed like heroes, Jude attacking the former, and James the latter.

According to Mar 6:3,¹⁸ the Nazarenes called Jesus Himself ‘the carpenter.’ In Matthew the term is exchanged for ‘the carpenter’s son’ (13:53). The tradition of the early Church, however, agrees with Mark in the belief that Jesus, in His youth, practised the trade of His father. Apocryphal writings describe Him as fashioning all kinds of wooden vessels.¹⁹ Justin Martyr relates, that Jesus made ploughs and yokes, thereby exhibiting symbols of righteousness, and inculcating an active life.²⁰ This tradition, however, cannot be regarded as an historical certainty. But neither, on the other hand, can we raise any objection to the view, that Jesus should have laboured as an artizan. It has been remarked, that among the Jews no idea of degradation was attached to handicraft; even Paul practised a trade. Such an observation may facilitate our conception of the youthful activity of Jesus. But it must not be forgotten, that even a mind like that of Jacob Böhm the cobbler could, though in an aristocratic age, number noblemen among his pupils. If Christ really worked as a mechanic, He ennobled labour; that He who ennobled even the death of the innocent upon the accursed tree should be degraded by such a circumstance, can be a cause of anxiety only to the weakest minds. We may indeed suppose that it was in an ideal state of mind that He fashioned His vessels of wood, and that yokes and ploughs would become symbols in His hands. The sons of Alpheus, however, who with Jewish pride saw in Him the glory of Israel, who was to be manifested to the world (Joh 7:4; Joh 14:22), would hardly have suffered Him to work much. It may also have frequently occurred, that during His journeys to the festivals He passed some time in a circle of chosen ones, or that days and nights spent upon the mountain solitudes of Galilee in profound contemplation and fervent prayer, flew by as but an instant, in communion with God, to whom a thousand years are as one day. The forty days’ sojourn in the wilderness, which represents one single meditation or act of devotion, leads to the conclusion that He had before been frequently in a similar state of unconsciousness of the lapse of time.²¹ Thus, even in His youth, He was accustomed to the solemn loneliness of night, to the solitary ways of the Spirit amid desert solitudes, in which the heart is so susceptible of the secret influences of the all-present and living God. In the freedom of this course of life, which we claim for the Lord’s youthful years, and which Mary and her foster-family would themselves undoubtedly claim for Him, His bodily activity could not have been very great. His self-consciousness was strong enough to let Him allow Himself to be cared for in temporal things, by those who became through Him acquainted with a blessedness of which, but for Him, they could have formed no conception.

If we now finally inquire into the extent of Christ’s worldly means, and consider Him, at one time, as quite poor, because His parents brought the offering of the poor in the temple, or because He had not where to lay His head; at another, as in prosperity, perhaps because He wore a seamless coat, or for similar reasons; we should, above all things, well consider that the glaring difference between poor and rich which prevailed in the old æon had no signification for Him. He knew neither the cares nor the desires which make the poor wretched; in communion with God, and in the abundance of His love, He was the richest of kings. And though He had possessed the richest of inheritances, He would still have been among the poorest, since He could have kept nothing for Himself. In communion with His Father, and His spiritual family whom He met with everywhere, He never felt want. But the riches in presence of which all want disappears, are a mysterious possession, a Messianic treasury, not to be estimated according to rates of worldly property.

───♦───

Notes

1. Our view of the family of Jesus is as follows:—

(1.) Cleophas was (according to Hegesippus) the brother of Joseph.

(2.) Mary was his wife, and therefore sister-in-law to the mother of Jesus (Joh 19:25).

(3.) This Mary was (according to Mar 15:40; comp. Joh 19:25) the mother of James the Less, and of Joses.

(4.) This James, called the Less to distinguish him from James the Great in the apostolic catalogue, must therefore be identical with James the son of Alpheus.

(5.) James the Less survived his parents as an apostle. When the Epistle of Jude was written, the other James was already dead. The author of the Epistle of Jude calls himself the brother of James. This designation makes it probable that he was the same Jude whom Luke calls, in the apostolic catalogue (6:16), Jude of James.

Thus these apostolic men, James, Joses, and Jude, appear to have been brothers, sons of Alpheus, and in a civil sense, cousins of our Lord.

(6.) According to Mat 13:55, the brothers of Jesus are called James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. His sisters are only mentioned, and not named. In Mar 6:3, the order is James, Joses, Judas, and Simon; the first three names coinciding with those of the three sons of Alpheus.

(7.) According to Hegesippus and Eusebius, Simeon, a son of Cleophas, suffered martyrdom under Trajan, as Bishop of Jerusalem. Consequently, the fourth among the brethren of Jesus is also found among the sons of Alpheus, and there can be no doubt that the sons of Alpheus were the brethren of Jesus.

(8.) They were, in a legal sense, not merely cousins, but brothers, if Joseph had adopted them as the orphan-children of his deceased brother. That such adoptions were not uncommon, is proved by the circumstance that Christ enjoined one even on the cross.

1) Matt. xii. 46, xiii. 55 ; Mark iii. 31, vi. 3; John ii. 12, vii. 8, 5; Luke viii, 19 ; Acts i, 145; 1 Cor. ix. 5; Gal. i, 19.

2) This view has lately been defended with much skill and diligence by Ph. Schaf, in his essay, das Verhältniss des Jakobus, Bruders des Herrn zu Jakobus Alphäe, Berlin, 1843.

3) Alpheus . . . a Joanne Κλωπᾶς appellatur. Hebraicum חַלְפַּי a Matth. et Mareo abjecta aspiratione, Ἀλφαῖος efferebatur, ut Hagg. i, 1, חַנַּי a LXX. Ἀγαιος, a Joanne vero Κλωπᾶς, ח mutata in Κ, &c., redditur.—So Bretschneider’s Lexicon,

4) According to Lachmann’s reading, Matt. xiii. 55, Ἰωσήφ.

5) Comp. Schaf, das Verkältnisa, &c., p. 85.

6) [As Calvin says (in loc.), ‘Vocatur primogenitus ; sed non alia ratione nisi ut sciamus, ex virgine esse natum.—ED. ]

7) Lachmann has in Matt. the reading ἒτεκεν υἱόν.

8) See Schaf, p. 88.

9) Compare Wieseler’s article, Die Söhne Zebedii, Vettern des Herrn, in Ullmann and Umbreit’s Studien und Kritiken for 1840, No. 3, p. 648,

10) Finally, the author adduces, in favour of his hypothesis, the view of the Syrian Church. Hegesippus also, the oldest Church historian, who calls Cleophas a brother of Joseph, knew of the sisterly relationship between the wife of Cleophas and the mother of Jesus. For further proofs from apocryphal literature, see the above-named article, p. 681.

11) James the Less seems to have received this surname, with reference to the earlier entrance of the other James among the band of disciples.

12) Comp. Winer’s R. W. B., Art. Judas Lebbæus.

13) The expression, John vii. 4, is quite calculated to exhibit a character still biassed by carnal courage, and inclined to see timidity in Christ’s prudence. The same kind of expression, though ennobled, recurs John xiv. 21, here the decided utterance of this Judas.

14) [It has very commonly and carelessly been stated, that in the New Testament, εἰ μὴ uniformly preserves its exceptive use; and even with so accurate a grammarian as Ellicott, we find these words (Hist. Lect. p. 98, note) : ‘That Gal. i. 19 cannot be strained to mean, “I saw none of the apostles, but I saw the Lord’s brother,” seems almost certain from the regularly exceptive use which εἰ μὴ appears always to preserve in the New Testament.’ But that εἰ μὴ does not always preserve its exceptive use, but is commonly used as an adversative, must appear unquestionable to any one who looks at Matt. xxiv. 36, Luke iv. 26 and 27, and Matt. v. 13; passages where the exceptive use of the expression is simply impossible. If an instance in classical Greek be desired, such will be found in Aristoph. Eq. 184, Mitchell, in his edition of that play (in loc.), remarks, ‘In many cases, the French expression au contraire seems better to express its sense.’ His further conjectures regarding the use of this formula are well worth considering. So far, then, as the use of εἰ μὴ goes the controverted passage is susceptible of either rendering.—ED.]

15) Compare Wieseler on the brethren of the Lord in Ullmann and Umbreit’s Studien und Kritiken, 1842, No. i. p. 84. ‘The same Jewish Christians who denied the apostolic dignity of Paul, on account of his supposed deficiency in this respect when compared with the other apostles, although it was recognized by the latter, would then have placed James above the other apostles, in spite of the very same deficiency.’

16) The passage 1 Cor. ix. 5, only strengthens our view. When it is said, Have we not power to take with us a sister, as a wife, as the other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?—the brethren of the Lord evidently mark the first, and Cephas the second, degrees of an ascending series. But the brethren of the Lord could only form a gradation if they were also apostles. Peter, again, forms a gradation above them, as being both an apostle and the founder of the first church. If, then, the brethren of the Lord appear here as apostles, placed between Peter and the other apostles, it is evident that more than one are’ spoken of, as uniting these two qualifications ; and therefore not only James, but also Jude. We should then here be obliged to place not merely James, but also Jude, as brethren of the Lord who were not apostles, above the apostles, unless we take the passage in its plain and simple sense. In the passage 1 Cor. xv. 5-7, the sentences: Christ appeared to Cephas—εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα: to James—εἶτα τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, are entirely parallel. If in the latter case James is to be distinguished from the apostles, Cephas must equally be distinguished from the Twelve.

17) Comp. the concluding words of the above-named work of Schaf, pp. 90 ff.

18) Origen, in opposing Celsus, states that in the Gospels which were spread in the Church, Jesus was Himself called τέκτων, See Lachmann, Nov. Test., Mark vi. 3.

19) Comp. Strauss, Leben Jesu, vol. i. p. 322.

20) Dialog. c. Tryph. 83. Neander and others seem to find three kinds of vessels mentioned in the passage in question—ploughs, yokes, and scales.

21) In the life of Socrates we meet with an instance of this intensity of contemplation. He stands for a surprisingly long time on one spot, lost in reflection upon a problem.

22) [Both here and in Germany opinion is still very much divided regarding the brethren of our Lord. Equally competent investigators have ranged themselves on opposite sides, and men who elsewhere agree, here differ. Besides the Bible Dictionaries, we may refer to Greswell’s Dissertations on the Harmony (Diss. xvii.) for a defence of the opinion that our Lord’s brethren were the children of Joseph and Mary ; and for a very full and able advocacy of the other opinion, to Mill’s Myth. Interpretation, pp. 219-274. A very impartial statement of the question is given by Riggenbach (Vorlesungen über das Leben Jesu, p. 286, &c.) The following words of Andrews (Life of our Lord, p. 107) deserve to be quoted: ‘It is evident from this brief survey of the chief opinions respecting the Lord’s brethren and their relations to Jesus, that the data for a very positive judgment are wanting. There can be no doubt that the very general, although not universal, opinion in the Church, has Deen in favour of the perpetual virginity of Mary. In regard to the Lord’s brethren, there were some in very early times who thought them the children of Joseph and Mary, but most thought them to be either his cousins, or the children of Joseph, It is difficult to tell which of the latter two opinions is the elder, or best supported by tradition. The words of Calvin on Matt. i. 25 deserve to be kept in mind: Certe nemo unquam hac de re questionem movebit nisi curiosus ; nemo vero pertinaciter insistet nisi contentiosus rixator.’—ED.]