which question must be settled on other grounds than the ε un of Galatians (i: 19). Neither will it help to say, with some who would find a place for James the Lord's brother outside of the twelve, that the plural form apostles in Acts (ix: 27) "must not be pressed." This is true; but we do not need to press it. Luke says Barnabas brought Saul to the apostles; but Paul says there were only two, viz., Peter and James; therefore Peter and James were apostles without pressing, which is required to make Luke, or Paul either, say there was only one apostle. After the death of James of Zebedee we find James still holding a chief, if not the chief, place among the apostles at Jerusalem. Peter, on his release from prison (Acts xii: 17), says, "Go show these things to James and the brethren," and the decision of James settled the discussion in the apostolic council (mentioned in Acts xv) held about A. D. 51, at which time we learn not only from Acts that James presided, but from Galatians (ii: 9) that he takes precedence of Peter and John. When Paul made a subsequent visit to Jerusalem (Acts xxi), less than ten years after the council (Acts xv), he seems to have gone first to James, and reported to and consulted with him in reference to the work of God among the Gentiles. From all of which it seems plain that the James who, even before as well as ever after the death of James of Zebedee, occupies such a prominent place in Jerusalem, cannot possibly be any other than James the apostle, son of Alpheus, with whom we became acquainted in the gospels and the early part of the Acts, and which apostle, James of Alpheus, the apostle Paul calls the Lord's brother-a title, however, which, on examination, only confirms the above conclusion, viz., that James the Lord's brother (of Galatians i: 19) is none other than James the son of Alpheus. Had Paul used only the name James in the two places (Gal. i: 19; ii: 9) it would have been impossible to say whether he referred to one man or two; as it is, it is impossible to doubt. In the first instance the two Jameses were still living; therefore, Paul distinguishes the James whom he saw as "the Lord's brother." At the visit mentioned in the second chapter, James of Zebedee was dead, and there being then no need for a distinguishing title, Paul uses none-another of the thou sand-fold proofs, if one were still needed, that the sacred writers are anything at all but slip-shod or careless in the use of language. In fact, the language of no lawyer's brief is capable of putting its subject matter more thoroughly beyond dispute than is the language of the New Testament in settling, as far as need be settled, this subject of the Lord's brother, over which, and the questions growing out of it, there has been so much debate. Nor did the last will and testament of any man ever more evidently need to be tampered with, in order to be made to say something that the testator never meant it should say, than does the language of the Acts and Epistles in order to create confusion as to whether there really was in the early church at Jerusalem a prominent man named James, the Lord's brother, different from the apostle James of Alpheus. Let us come without any preconceived theories as to church government or church history, and we will find wonderfully little confusion, the expectation of which grows out of the widespread, insidious fallacy that the sacred writers are not particular in the use of language; that when they put the main facts concerning salvation in the possession of their readers, the thread of their narratives may then be either orderly or in hopeless confusion; and the names of persons and places may be given either with the accuracy and definitiveness that would characterize the writings of any other respectable and competent historian; or with the mixture of knowledge and ignorance, care and negligence that may be found in Shakespeare's "Two Gentlemen of Verona," or any other work intended rather to display the fine imagination of the writer than his conscientious regard for stubborn facts. As the views entertained in this paper must be much modified by the opinion which the reader entertains of the evangelist Luke's carefulness as a narrator, it may be as well to give that subject a very brief examination. And in that examination we cannot find a case better suited to our purpose than one brought forward to strengthen their position by those whose opinions on this question are entirely different from our own. We are told that it is "Luke's way" to introduce new characters in development of his plot, and that he might "introduce a third James without giving any account of his antecedents and origin," because "the self-same Luke introduces in the same manner Philip." If there is a Philip, there may be a James introduced in the Acts, who, as far as any specific statement in the narrative is concerned, may or may not be one of the twelve. If there is no such Philip, it will be vain to call on him for aid in persuading us that there is such a James. It should be borne in mind, too, here, that the phrase "James the Lord's brother," is used only by Paul (Gal. i: 19); that the passage to which he (Paul) refers in Acts (ix: 27) only says there were apostles present on the occasion, but gives the names of none. If, then, there should be, as there is not, a doubt on our mind as to the agreement between Paul and Luke, the benefit of the doubt, as far as Acts is concerned, must be given not to the apostle, but to the evangelist, who is responsible for his own book, and who succeeds in giving what he undertakes to give, i. e., an orderly, intelligible and consistent "declaration. of all things of which he had a perfect understanding from the very first." If we bear in mind that the New Testament nowhere says that either Mary or Joseph had other children besides Jesus, and then examine the exegetical and historical proof for the thus supposititious offspring, we will find that so much must be taken for granted, without evidence, at every step of the investigation, that, like Prospero's banquet, they "dissolve, And, like an unsubstantial pageant, faded, The question whether James was or was not among the twelve is not touched by the mention of the names of the brothers in the synagogue at Nazareth (Matt. xiii: 55, Mark iv : 3); whether, some time before, Jesus while at or near Capernaum had chosen twelve from among his disciples to become apostles, and whether the brother James was or was not among these twelve, are questions that we cannot suppose the bulk of the Nazarenes to have been much interested in or affected by in mentioning his kindred. The enumeration thus casts neither light nor darkness on the subject. If we take, then, Galatians 1: 19, the ordinary unprejudiced reader will regard the passage as implying that James was an apostle; if, e. g., instead of "James, the Lord's brother," we had met the name of John, Thomas or Andrew, no one would ever have thought of show ing that the passage in the original does not prove that the one thus named was an apostle. We grant here, however, that the language in the original does not prove that he was; but grant no more, as it does not prove the contrary. We go back next to Acts ix: 27, and find that Saul was introduced to apostles, and we learn from Gal. 1: 19 that there were only two men, viz., Peter and James, at the meeting with Saul. We naturally infer again that the two were both apostles, but are told that this passage must not be regarded as proof that they were. However willingly we yielded the request based on the ε un of Gal. I: 19, we feel here that we must begin to make a stand for the truth; and though believing that the fair import of the language is that the men were both apostles, we will, for the sake of argument, yield the point for the present, and ask, What next? We then go back to the gospels (Matt. xiii: 55, Mark vi: 3), and find the names of four brothers, the first two names in both lists being James and Joses. The same evangelists, without mentioning any other pair of brothers with these names, tell us that Mary, one of the witnesses of the crucifixion (Matt. xxvii : 56, Mark xv: 40), whom from another gospel (John xix: 25) we learn to have been the wife of Cleophas, was the mother of James and Joses, and we are told+ that this pair of brothers are to be distinguished from the brothers of our Lord. Here we absolutely rebel against such an unwarranted assumption, and reply, No; they are not so mentioned to be distinguished from, but, on the contrary, to be identified with the Lord's brothers mentioned by name in only these two gospels; otherwise why mention Joses at all, of whom we know nothing except that he was one of those called the brothers of the Lord! It is all well enough for the evangelist Luke, who had not given the names of the four brothers, to mention only one of the sons of Mary, viz., James, i. e., one of the two Jameses whom he had already mentioned, not the brother of John and son of Zebedee, but James of Alpheus. But supposing Matthew and Mark to have been sufficiently well informed and honest, and not wanting to mislead, they could have had only one object in coupling the name of Joses, as they both do, with that of James, viz., to identify † By Dr. Alford. * Dr. Lightfoot. them as two of the four brothers of the Lord. We next go to 1 Corinthians xv: 5, 7, and learn that "Christ appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles." And though Cephas is permitted to pass unchallenged, we are told by a recent commentator* that "it was this manifestation of the risen Saviour" to James "that proved for him and his brethren the turning point of their lives, so that they at once became his decided followers." Such a comment might be found fittingly enough among the cabala of the ancient Jews; but certainly sorts badly with the scientific accuracy expected from Christian scholars of the present century. Even supposing that there was, as there was not, a James the Lord's brother, not of the twelve, it is certainly an unwarranted assumption to say that the James of 1 Corinthians xv: 7 was he and neither of the other two Jameses who were among the apostles; while to go on and say that "this appearance proved for James and his brethren the turning point of their lives," is a flight of fancy unsurpassed by anything of the kind outside of the "Arabian Nights" or "Robinson Crusoe"! The next request is much more unreasonable than any or all that have gone before; but while it remains ungranted, as it forever must, the others are entirely valueless toward introducing the third James; it is to believe that it would not be contrary to what we know of the evangelist Luke's habits as a writer to suppose that he introduced James not of the twelve in his narrative of the Acts. After having given the book of Acts a somewhat careful examination, to discover, if possible, the reasonableness or otherwise of this assumption, we hesitate not to affirm that it would not be a greater insult to the literary character of Washington Irving to suppose that the George Washington who, he tells us, in 1781 prescribed the terms of capitulation at Yorktown, Va., was a changeling, having only the name in common with the man who he tells us in 1755 displayed such intrepidity and coolness on the field of Braddock's defeat, than it would to the character of the evangelist Luke, as a writer, to suppose that James, who ever after Acts xii: 2 appears as James simply, could pos * Dr. C. F. Kling, in Lange's Commentary on Corinthians. |