_THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE:
JAMES THE BROTHER OF THE LORD._
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus
Christ."--JAS. i. 1
We have still to consider the second half of the question as to the
authenticity of this letter. Granting that it is a genuine Epistle of
James, and a writing of the Apostolic age, to which of the persons in
that age who are known to us as bearing the name of James is it to be
attributed? The consensus of opinion on this point, though not so
great as that respecting the genuineness of the letter, is now very
considerable, and seems to be increasing.
The name James is the English form of the Hebrew name Yacoob (Jacob),
which in Greek became Ἰάκωβος, in Latin Jacōbus, and in English
James, a form which grievously blurs the history of the name. From
having been the name of the patriarch Jacob, the progenitor of the
Jewish race, it became one of the commonest of proper names among the
Jews; and in the New Testament we find several persons bearing this
name among the followers of Jesus Christ. It would be possible to make
as many as six; but these must certainly be reduced to four, and
probably to three.
These six are--
1. James the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and brother of John the
Apostle (Matt. iv. 21; x. 2; xvii. 5; Mark x. 35; xiii. 3; Luke
ix. 54; Acts xii. 2).
2. James the Apostle, the son of Alphæus (Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18;
Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13).
3. James the Little, the son of Mary the wife of Clōpas (John
xix. 25), who had one other son, named Joses (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark
xv. 40).
4. James the brother of the Lord (Gal. i. 19), a relationship which he
shares with Joses, Simon, and Judas (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3) and
some unnamed sisters.
5. James the overseer of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17;
xv. 13; xxi. 18; 1 Cor. xv. 7; Gal. ii. 9, 12).
6. James the brother of the Jude who wrote the Epistle (Jude i. 1).
Besides which, we have an unknown James, who was father of the Apostle
Judas, not Iscariot (Luke v. 16); but we do not know that this James
ever became a disciple.
Of these six we may safely identify the last three as being one and
the same person; and we may probably identify James the Apostle, the
son of Alphæus, with James the Little, the son of Mary and Clopas; in
which case we may conjecture that the epithet of "the Little" (ὁ
μικρός) was given him to distinguish him from the other Apostle James,
the son of Zebedee. Clopas (not Cleophas, as in the A.V.) may be one
Greek form of the Aramaic name Chalpai, of which Alphæus may be
another Greek form; so that the father of this James may have been
known both as Clopas and as Alphæus. But this is by no means certain.
In the ancient Syriac Version we do not find both Alphæus and Clopas
represented by Chalpai; but we find Alphæus rendered Chalpai, while
Clopas reappears as Kleopha. And the same usage is found in the
Jerusalem Syriac.
We have thus reduced the six to four or three; and it is sometimes
proposed to reduce the three to two, by identifying James the Lord's
brother with James the son of Alphæus. But this identification is
attended by difficulties so serious as to seem to be quite fatal; and
it would probably never have been made but for the wish to show that
"brother of the Lord" does not mean brother in the literal sense, but
may mean _cousin_. For the identification depends upon making Mary the
wife of Clopas (and mother of James the son of Alphæus) identical with
the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, in the much-discussed
passage John xix. 25; so that Jesus and James would be first cousins,
being sons respectively of two sisters, each of whom was called
Mary.[17]
The difficulties under which this theory labours are mainly these:--
1. It depends on an identification of Clopas with Alphæus, which is
uncertain, though not improbable.
2. It depends on a further identification of Christ's "mother's
sister" with "Mary the wife of Clopas" in John xix. 25, which is both
uncertain and highly improbable. In that verse we almost certainly
have four women, and not three, contrasted with the four soldiers just
mentioned (vv. 23, 24), and arranged in two pairs: "His mother, and
His mother's sister; Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."
3. It assumes that two sisters were both called Mary.
4. No instance in Greek literature has been found in which "brother"
(ἀδελφός) means "cousin." The Greek language has a word to express
"cousin" (ἀνεψιός), which occurs Col. iv. 10; and it is to be noted
that the ancient tradition preserved by Hegesippus (c. A.D. 170)
distinguishes James the first overseer of the Church of Jerusalem as
the "_brother_ of the Lord" (Eus. _H. E._ II. xxiii. 1), and his
successor Symeon as the "_cousin_ of the Lord" (IV. xxii. 4). Could
Hegesippus have written thus if James were really a cousin? If a vague
term such as "kinsman" (συγγενής) was wanted, that also might have
been used, as in Luke i. 36, 58; ii. 44.
5. In none of the four lists of the Apostles is there any hint that
any of them are the brethren of the Lord; and in Acts i. 13, 14, and
1 Cor. ix. 5, "the brethren of the Lord" are expressly distinguished
from the Apostles. Moreover, the traditions of the age subsequent to
the New Testament sometimes make James the Lord's brother one of the
Seventy, but never one of the Twelve, a fact which can be explained
only on the hypothesis that it was notorious that he was not one of
the Twelve. The reverence for this James and for the title of Apostle
was such that tradition would eagerly have given him the title had
there been any opening for doing so.
6. The "brethren of the Lord" appear in the Gospels almost always with
the mother of the Lord (Matt. xii. 46; Mark iii. 32; Luke viii. 19;
John ii. 12); never with Mary the wife of Clopas; and popular
knowledge of them connects them with Christ's mother, and not with any
other Mary (Mark vi. 3; Matt. xiii. 55). "My brethren," in Matt.
xxviii. 10, and John xx. 17, does not mean Christ's earthly relations,
but the children of "My Father and your Father."
7. But the strongest objection of all is St. John's express statement
(vii. 5) that "even His brethren did not believe on Him;" a statement
which he could not have made if one of the brethren (James), and
possibly two others (Simon and Judas), were already Apostles.
The identification of James the son of Alphæus with James the Lord's
brother must therefore be abandoned, and we remain with three
disciples bearing the name of James from which to select the writer of
this Epistle--the son of Zebedee, the son of Alphæus, and the brother
of the Lord. The father of Judas, not Iscariot, need not be
considered, for we do not even know that he ever became a believer.
In our ignorance of the life, and thought, and language of the son of
Zebedee and the son of Alphæus, we cannot say that there is anything
in the Epistle itself which forbids us to attribute it to either of
them; but there is nothing in it which leads us to do so. And there
are two considerations which, when combined, are strongly against
Apostolic authorship. The writer does not claim to be an Apostle; and
the hesitation as to the reception of the Epistle in certain parts of
the Christian Church would be extraordinary if the letter were reputed
to be of Apostolic authorship. When we take either of these Apostles
separately we become involved in further difficulties. It is not
probable that any Apostolic literature existed in the lifetime of
James the son of Zebedee, who was martyred, under Herod Agrippa I.,
_i.e._ not later than the spring of A.D. 44, when Herod Agrippa died.
That any Apostle wrote an encyclical letter as early as A.D. 42 or 43
is so improbable that we ought to have strong evidence before adopting
it, and the only evidence worth considering is that furnished by the
Peshitto. The earliest MSS. of this ancient Syriac Version, which date
from the fifth to the eighth century, call it an Epistle of James the
Apostle; but evidence which cannot be traced higher than the fifth
century respecting an improbable occurrence alleged to have taken
place in the first century is not worth very much. Moreover, the
scribes who put this heading and subscription to the Epistle may have
meant no more than that it was by a person of Apostolic rank, or they
may have shared the common Western error of identifying the brother of
the Lord with the son of Alphæus. Editors of the Syriac Version in a
much later age certainly do attribute the Epistle to the son of
Zebedee, for they state that the three Catholic Epistles admitted to
that version--James, 1 Peter, and 1 John--are by the three Apostles
who witnessed the Transfiguration. The statement seems to be a
blundering misinterpretation of the earlier title, which assigned it
to James the Apostle. And if we attribute the letter to the son of
Alphæus we get rid of one difficulty, only to fall into another; we
are no longer compelled to give the Epistle so improbably early a date
as A.D. 43, but we are left absolutely without any evidence to connect
it with the son of Alphæus, _unless_ we identify this Apostle with the
brother of the Lord, an identification which has already been shown to
be untenable.[18]
Therefore, without further hesitation, we may assign the Epistle to
one of the most striking and impressive figures in the Apostolic age,
James the Just, the brother of the Lord, and the first overseer of the
Mother Church of Jerusalem.
Whether James was the brother of the Lord as being the son of Joseph
by a former marriage, or as being the son of Joseph and Mary born
after the birth of Jesus, need not be argued in detail. All that
specially concerns us, for a right understanding of the Epistle, is to
remember that it was written by one who, although for some time not a
believer in the Messiahship of Jesus, was, through his near
relationship, constantly in His society, witnessing His acts and
hearing His words. This much, however, should be noted, that there is
nothing in Scripture to warn us from understanding that Joseph and
Mary had other children, and that "_first_born" in Luke ii. 7, and
"till" in Matt. i. 25, appear to imply that they had; a supposition
confirmed by contemporary belief (Mark vi. 3; Matt. xiii. 55), and by
the constant attendance of these "brethren" on the mother of the Lord
(Matt. xii. 46; Mark iii. 32; Luke viii. 19; John ii. 12); that, on
the other hand, the theory which gives Joseph children older than
Jesus deprives Him of His rights as the heir of Joseph and of the
house of David; seems to be of apocryphal origin (Gospel according to
Peter, or Book of James); and like Jerome's theory of cousinship,
appears to have been invented in the interests of ascetic views and of
_à priori_ convictions as to the perpetual virginity of the Blessed
Virgin. The immense consensus of belief in the perpetual virginity
does not begin until long after all historical evidence was lost.
Tertullian appears to assume as a matter of course that the Lord's
brethren are the children of Joseph and Mary, as if in his day no one
had any other view (_Adv. Marc._, IV. xix.; _De Carne Christi_,
vii.).[19]
According to either view, James was the son of Joseph, and almost
certainly was brought up with his Divine Brother in the humble home at
Nazareth. His father, as St. Matthew tells us (i. 19) was a _just_ or
_righteous_ man, like the parents of the Baptist (Luke i. 6), and this
was the title by which James was known during his lifetime, and by
which he is still constantly known. He is James "the Just" (ὁ δίκαιος).
The epithet as used in Scripture of his father and others (Matt.
i. 19; xxiii. 35; Luke i. 6; ii. 25; xxiii. 50; Acts x. 20; 2 Peter
ii. 7), and in history of him, must not be understood as implying
precisely what the Athenians meant when they styled Aristeides "the
Just," or what we mean by being "just" now. To a Jew the word implied
not merely being impartial and upright, but also having a studied and
even scrupulous reverence for everything prescribed by the Law. The
Sabbath, the synagogue worship, the feasts and fasts, purification,
tithes, all the moral and ceremonial ordinances of the Law of the
Lord--these were the things on which the just man bestowed a loving
care, and in which he preferred to do more than was required, rather
than the bare minimum insisted on by the Rabbis. It was in a home of
which righteousness of this kind was the characteristic that St. James
was reared, and in which he became imbued with that reverent love for
the Law which makes him, even more than St. Paul, to be the ideal
"Hebrew of Hebrews." For him Christ came "not to destroy, but to
fulfil." Christianity turns the Law of Moses into a "royal law"
(ii. 8), but it does not abrogate it. The Judaism which had been his
moral and spiritual atmosphere during his youth and early manhood
remained with him after he had learned to see that there was no
antagonism between the Law and the Gospel.
It would be part of his strict Jewish training that he should pay the
prescribed visits to Jerusalem at the feasts (John vii. 10); and he
would there become familiar with the magnificent liturgy of the
Temple, and would lay the foundation for that love of public and
private prayer within its precincts which was one of his best-known
characteristics in after-life. A love of prayer, and a profound belief
in its efficacy, appear again and again in the pages of his Epistle
(i. 5; iv. 2, 3, 8; v. 13-18). It was out of a strong personal
experience that the man who knelt in prayer until "his knees became
hard like a camel's" declared that "the supplication of a righteous
man availeth much in its working."
Strict Judaism has ever a tendency to narrowness, and we find this
tendency in the brethren of the Lord, in their attitude both towards
their Brother, and also towards Gentile converts after they had
accepted Him (Gal. ii. 12). Of the long period of silence during which
Jesus was preparing Himself for His ministry we know nothing. But
immediately after His first miracle, which they probably witnessed,
they went down with Him, and His mother, and His disciples to
Capernaum (John ii. 12), and very possibly accompanied Him to
Jerusalem for the Passover. They would be almost certain to go thither
to keep the feast. It was there that "many believed on His Name,
beholding His signs which He did. But Jesus did not trust Himself unto
them, for that He knew all men." He knew that when the immediate
effect of His miracles had passed off the faith of these sudden
converts would not endure. And this seems to have been the case with
His brethren. They were at first attracted by His originality, and
power, and holiness, then perplexed by methods which they could not
understand (John vii. 3, 4), then inclined to regard Him as a dreamer
and a fanatic (Mark iii. 21), and finally decided against Him (John
vii. 5). Like many others among His followers, they were quite unable
to reconcile His position with the traditional views respecting the
Messiah; and instead of revising these views, as being possibly
faulty, they held fast to them, and rejected Him. It was not merely in
reference to the people of Nazareth, who had tried to kill Him (Luke
iv. 29), but to those who were still closer to Him by ties of blood
and home, that He uttered the sad complaint, "A prophet is not without
honour, save in his own country, and among _his own kin_, and in _his
own house_" (Mark vi. 4).
The fact that our Lord committed His mother to the keeping of St. John
harmonizes with the supposition that at the time of the Crucifixion
His brethren were still unbelievers. The Resurrection would be likely
to open their eyes and dispel their doubts (Acts i. 14); and a special
revelation of the risen Lord seems to have been granted to St. James
(1 Cor. xv. 7), as to St. Paul; in both cases because behind the
external opposition to Christ there was earnest faith and devotion,
which at once found its object, as soon as the obstructing darkness
was removed. After his conversion, St. James speedily took the first
place among the believers who constituted the original Church of
Jerusalem. He takes the lead, even when the chief of the Apostles are
present. It is to him that St. Peter reports himself, when he is
miraculously freed from prison (Acts xii. 17). It is he who presides
at the so-called Council of Jerusalem (xv. 13; see esp. ver. 19). And
it is to him that St. Paul specially turns on his last visit to
Jerusalem, to report his success among the Gentiles (xxi. 17).
St. Paul places him before St. Peter and St. John in mentioning those
"who were reputed to be pillars" of the Church (Gal. ii. 9), and
states that on his first visit to Jerusalem after his own conversion
he stayed fifteen days with Peter, but saw no other of the Apostles,
excepting James, the Lord's brother (Gal. i. 18, 19); a passage of
disputed meaning, but which, if it does not imply that James was in
some sense an Apostle, at least suggests that he was a person of equal
importance. (Comp. Acts ix. 26-30.) Moreover, we find that at Antioch
St. Peter himself allowed his attitude towards the Gentiles to be
changed in deference to the representations of "certain that came from
James," who had possibly misunderstood or misused their commission;
but the narrowness already alluded to may have made St. James himself
unable to move as rapidly as St. Peter and St. Paul in adopting a
generous course with Gentile converts.
Unless there is a reference to St. James in Heb. xiii. 7, as among
those who had once "had the lead over you," but are now no longer
alive to speak the word, we must go outside the New Testament for
further notices of him. They are to be found chiefly in Clement of
Alexandria, Hegesippus, and Josephus. Clement (_Hypotyp._ VI. ap. Eus.
_H. E._ II. i. 3) records a tradition that Peter, James, and John,
after the Ascension of the Saviour, although they had been preferred
by the Lord, did not contend for distinction, but that James the Just
became Bishop of Jerusalem. And again (_Hypotyp._ VII.), "To James the
Just, John, and Peter, the Lord, after the Resurrection, imparted the
gift of knowledge (τὴν γνῶσιν); these imparted it to the rest of the
Apostles, and the rest of the Apostles to the Seventy, of whom
Barnabas was one. Now, there have been two Jameses--one the Just, who
was thrown from the gable [of the Temple], and beaten to death by a
fuller with a club, and another who was beheaded."[20] The narrative
of Hegesippus is also preserved for us by Eusebius (_H. E._ II.
xxiii. 4-18). It is manifestly legendary, and possibly comes from the
Essene Ebionites, who appear to have been fond of religious romances.
It is sometimes accepted as historical, as by Clement in the passage
just quoted; but its internal improbabilities and its divergencies
from Josephus condemn it. It may, however, contain some historical
touches, especially in the general sketch of St. James; just as the
legends about our own King Alfred, although untrustworthy as to facts,
nevertheless convey a true idea of the saintly and scholarly king. It
runs thus: "There succeeds to the charge of the Church, James, the
brother of the Lord, in conjunction with the Apostles, the one who has
been named Just by all, from the time of our Lord to our own time, for
there were many called James.[21] Now, he was holy from his mother's
womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink; nor did he eat animal
food. No razor ever came upon his head; he anointed not himself with
oil; and he did not indulge in bathing. To him alone was it lawful to
go into the Holy Place[22]; for he wore no wool, but linen. And he
would go into the Temple alone, and would be found there kneeling on
his knees and asking forgiveness for the people, so that his knees
became dry and hard as a camel's, because he was always on his knees
worshipping God and asking forgiveness for the people. On account,
therefore, of his exceeding justness, he was called Just and Oblias,
which is in Greek 'bulwark of the people' and 'justness,' as the
prophets show concerning him. Some, then, of the seven sects among the
people, which have been mentioned before by me in the _Memoirs_, asked
him, What is the Door of Jesus? And he said that He was the Saviour.
From which some believed Jesus is the Christ. But the sects aforesaid
did not believe, either in the Resurrection or in One coming to
recompense to each man according to his works. But as many as believed
did so through James. When many, therefore, even of the rulers were
believing, there was a tumult of the Jews and scribes and Pharisees,
who said, It looks as if all the people would be expecting Jesus as
the Christ. They came together, therefore, and said to James, We pray
thee, restrain the people, for it has been led astray after Jesus, as
though He were the Christ. We pray thee to persuade all that come to
the day of the Passover concerning Jesus; for to thee we all give
heed. For we bear witness to thee, and so do all the people, that thou
art just, and acceptest not the person of any. Do thou, therefore,
persuade the multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus; for all
the people and all of us give heed to thee. Stand, therefore, upon the
gable of the Temple, that thou mayest be visible to those below, and
that thy words may be readily heard by all the people. For on account
of the Passover there have come together all the tribes, with the
Gentiles also. Therefore the aforesaid scribes and Pharisees placed
James upon the gable of the Temple, and cried to him and said, O just
one, to whom we ought all to give heed, seeing that the people is
being led astray after Jesus, who was crucified, tell us what is the
Door of Jesus. And he answered with a loud voice, Why ask ye me
concerning Jesus the Son of man? Even He sitteth in heaven, at the
right of the Mighty Power, and He is to come on the clouds of heaven.
And when many were convinced, and gave glory on the witness of James,
and said, Hosannah to the Son of David, then again the same scribes
and Pharisees said unto one another, We have done ill in furnishing
such witness to Jesus. But let us go up, and cast him down, that they
may be terrified, and not believe him. And they cried out, saying, Oh!
oh! even the Just has been led astray. And they fulfilled the
Scripture, which is written in Isaiah, Let us take away the Just One,
for he is troublesome to us; therefore shall they eat the fruit of
their deeds. So they went up, and cast down the Just, and said to one
another, Let us stone James the Just. And they began to stone him,
seeing that he was not dead from the fall, but turning round, knelt,
and said, I pray Thee, Lord God and Father, forgive them, for they
know not what they do. But whilst they were thus stoning him, one of
the priests of the sons of Rechab, son of Rechabim,[23] to whom
Jeremiah the prophet bears testimony, cried, saying, Stop! what are ye
doing? The Just One is praying for you. And one of them, one of the
fullers, took the club with which clothes are pressed, and brought it
down on the head of the Just One. And in this way he bore witness. And
they buried him on the spot by the Temple, and his monument still
remains by the Temple. This man has become a true witness, to both
Jews and Gentiles, that Jesus is the Christ. And straightway Vespasian
lays siege to them." That is, Hegesippus regards the attack of the
Romans as a speedy judgment on the Jews for the murder of James the
Just, and consequently places it A.D. 69. This is probably several
years too late. Josephus places it A.D. 62 or 63. His account is as
follows:--
"Now, the younger Ananus, whom we stated to have succeeded to the
high-priesthood, was precipitate in temper and exceedingly audacious,
and he followed the sect of the Sadducees, who are very harsh in
judging offenders, beyond all other Jews, as we have already shown.
Ananus, therefore, as being a person of this character, and thinking
that he had a suitable opportunity, through Festus being dead, and
Albinus still on his journey (to Judæa), assembles a Sanhedrin of
judges; and he brought before it the brother of Jesus who was called
Christ (his name was James) and some others, and delivered them to be
stoned, on a charge of being transgressors of the law. But as many as
seemed to be most equitable among those in the city, and scrupulous as
to all that concerned the laws, were grievously affected by this; and
they send to the king [Herod Agrippa II.], secretly praying him to
order Ananus to act in such a way no more; for that not even his first
action was lawfully done. And some of them go to meet Albinus on his
journey from Alexandria, and inform him that Ananus had no authority
to assemble a Sanhedrin without his leave. And Albinus, being
convinced by what they said, wrote in anger to Ananus, threatening to
punish him for this. And for this reason King Agrippa took away the
high-priesthood from him after he had been in office three months, and
conferred it upon Jesus the son of Damnæus" (_Ant._ XX. ix. 1).
This account by Josephus contains no improbabilities, and should be
preferred to that of Hegesippus. It has been suspected of Christian
interpolation, because of the reference to Jesus Christ, whom Josephus
persistently ignores in his writings. But a Christian who took the
trouble to garble the narrative at all would probably have done so to
more purpose, both as regards Jesus and James. In any case Hegesippus
and Josephus agree in confirming the impression produced by the New
Testament, that James the Just was a person held in the greatest
respect by all in Jerusalem, whether Jews or Christians, and one who
exercised great influence in the East over the whole Jewish race. We
shall find that this fact harmonizes well with the phenomena of the
Epistle, and it leads directly to the next question which calls upon
us for discussion.
[17] The supposed relationship may be exhibited thus:--
|
+------------------+-----+
| |
Mary == Joseph. Mary == Clopas or Alphæus.
| |
| +------------+-----+-------+-------------+
| | | | |
JESUS CHRIST. James the Apostle. Joseph. Simon Judas
(Apostle?). (Apostle?).
[18] It seems to be right to take this opportunity of preventing a
name of great authority from being any longer quoted as favouring the
identification. Dr. Döllinger, in his _Christenthum und Kirche in der
Zeit der Grundlegung_ (1860), translated by H. N. Oxenham as _The
First Age of Christianity and the Church_, advocated the
identification (chap. iii.). The venerable author told the present
writer, in June, 1877, that he was convinced that his earlier opinion
on this subject was entirely erroneous, and that the Apostle James of
Alphæus was a different person from James Bishop of Jerusalem and
brother of the Lord. He added that the Eastern Church had always
distinguished the two, and that their identification in the West was
due to the influence of Jerome.
The evidence of Martyrologies and Calendars is worth noting as
indicating the tradition on the subject. The Hieronymian Martyrology
and other early Roman Martyrologies commemorate James of Alphæus June
22nd, and James the Lord's brother December 27th; the Ambrosian
Liturgy, James of Alphæus December 30th, and the Lord's brother May
1st; the Byzantine Calendar, James of Alphæus October 9th, and the
Lord's brother October 23rd; the Egyptian and Ethiopic Calendars,
James of Alphæus October 2nd, and the Lord's brother October 23rd.
[19] Alford, Farrar, Meyer, Schaff, Stier, Weiss, Wieseler, Winer, and
others support this view. See also McClellan's note on Matt. xiii. 55,
and Plumptre's Introduction to St. James. Bishop Lightfoot contends
for the Epiphanian theory.
[20] Comp. _Strom._ VI. viii., where Clement speaks of James, Peter,
John, Paul (note the order) as possessing the true _gnosis_, and
knowing all things.
[21] Hegesippus evidently distinguishes James the brother of the
Lord from any of the Twelve.
[22] It is incredible that he should be allowed the privileges of the
high priest.
[23] What is the meaning of this tautology? And could a Rechabite,
who was not a Jew, become a priest?