The identity of James, Jude and Simon
James is without doubt the Bishop ofJerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18;Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity withJames the Less (Mark 15:40) and theApostle James, the son of Alpheus(Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19: "But other of the apostles [besidesCephas] I saw none, saving James thebrother of the Lord", St. Paul representsJames as a member of the Apostoliccollege. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that the "apostles" is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulnessdemands that the clause "saving James" be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, "James the brother of the Lord" (cf. Acts 9:27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles(Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number. Now there were only twoApostles named James: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus(Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16;Acts 1:13). The former is out of the question, since he was dead at the time of the events to which Acts 15:6 ssq., andGalatians 2:9-12 refer (cf. Acts 12:2).James "the brother of the Lord" is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with Jamesthe Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. Again, on comparingJohn 19:25 with Matthew 27:56, andMark 15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47; 16:1), we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas (Klopas), the sister ofMary the Mother of Christ, is the same asMary the mother of James the Less and ofJoseph, or Joses. As married women are not distinguished by the addition of their father's name, Mary of Clopas must be the wife of Clopas, and not his daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover, the names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James and Joseph, or Joses, the "brethren" of the Lord. The existenceamong the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be assumed without proof. Once this identity is conceded, the conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the two names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Josephthe "brethren" of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus.
Of Joseph nothing further is known. Judeis the writer of the last of the Catholic Epistles (Jude 1). He is with good reason identified by Catholic commentators with the "Judas Jacobi" ("Jude the brother ofJames" in the Douay Version) of Luke6:16 and Acts 1:13, otherwise known asThaddeus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18). It is quite in accordance with Greek customfor a man to be distinguished by the addition of his brother's name instead of his father's, when the brother was better known. That such was the case with Judeis inferred from the title "the brother ofJames", by which he designates himself in his Epistle. About Simon nothing certaincan be stated. He is identified by mostcommentators with the Symeon, orSimon, who, according to Hegesippus, was a son of Clopas, and succeededJames as Bishop of Jerusalem. Some identify him with the Apostle Simon theCananean (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18) or the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The grouping together of James, Jude orThaddeus, and Simon, after the otherApostles, Judas Iscariot excepted, in the lists of the Apostles, (Matthew 10:4-5;Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) lends some probability to this view, as it seems to indicate some sort of connexion between the three. Be this as it may, it iscertain that at least two of the "brethren" of Christ were among the Apostles. This is clearly implied in 1 Corinthians 9:5: "Have we not the power to carry about awoman, a sister, as well as the rest of theapostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" The mention of Cephas at the end indicates that St. Paul, after speaking of the Apostles in general, calls special attention to the more prominent ones, the "brethren" of the Lord andCephas. The objection that no "brethren" of the Lord could have been members of the Apostolic college, because six months before Christ's death they did not believein Him (John 7:3-5), rests on a misunderstanding of the text. His "brethren" believed in his miraculouspower, and urged him to
manifest it to the world. Their unbelief was therefore relative. It was not a want of belief in HisMessiahship, but a false conception of it. They had not yet rid themselves of theJewish idea of a Messiah who would be a temporal ruler. We meet with this ideaamong the Apostles as late as the day of the Ascension (Acts 1:6). In any case the expression "his brethren" does notnecessarily include each and every "brother", whenever it occurs. This last remark also sufficiently answers the difficulty in Acts 1:13-14, where, it is said, a clear distinction is made between the Apostles and the "brethren" of theLord.
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
No comments:
Post a Comment