Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 13.djvu/579

 JAMES 553 James must be intended, and when we read St Jude s epistle (17, 18) we find him distinguishing himself from the apostles, and as it were disclaiming the apostolic dignity. This is as it would be if James and Jude were both brethren of the Lord and were not apostles, but we should certainly expect one or other would have left some indication in their letters had they been of the number of the twelve, and most surely neither of them would have been likely to give us reason for believing that he was not an apostle. The two passages (1 Cor. xv. 7 ; Gal. i. 19) from which it might be argued that James the brother of the Lord was an apostle cannot be relied on, for we find the same title given to Barnabas, and it is certain that the name &quot; apostle &quot; began to be more widely applied after the ascension than it is in the Gospels. Once more, the brethren of the Lord are expressly said (John vii. 5) not to have believed on Jesus at a period much later in his ministry than the appointment of the twelve ; while in the mention of them in Acts i. 14 there is given first a list of the eleven, who are said all to have &quot; continued in prayer with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brethren.&quot; Such a studied severance of the brethren of the Lord from the number of the apostles is very significant, while the position which they hold in the list may well be due to the fact that it was only at a late period that they had become disciples of Jesus. The change in their opinions has been thought by many to be sufficiently accounted for by the statement of St Paul (1 Cor. xv. 7) that after his resurrection Jesus &quot; was seen of James.&quot; Such a demonstration of the truth of what others had long believed and Jesus himself had taught could not fail to work conviction on a mind which, if we may accept the tradition of the &quot; Gospel according to the Hebrews &quot; (which also testifies to this appearance of Christ to James), was somewhat inclined to believe, even before the cruci fixion. It seems right therefore to conclude that James the son of Alphosus, one of the apostles, was a different person from James the Lord s brother and bishop of Jerusalem. Of the history of the former we are told nothing except that he was an apostle. The latter is spoken of by St Peter (Acts xii. 17) as if he were at that time the recognized head of the Christian community in Jerusalem. Again (Acts xv. 13), after the debate at Jerusilem about the circumcision of the Gentiles, it is he who sums up the arguments and declares the sentence of the council, as if he were the chief person among them. In Acts xxi. 18, on St Paul s last visit to Jerusalem, he holds the same position, and receives the visit of St Paul in the presence of all the presbyters. In Gal. i. 19, ii. 9 he is placed foremost among &quot; the pillars &quot; of the church of Jeru salem. From the New Testament we learn no more of the history of James the Lord s brother, but Eusebius (//. E., ii. 23) has preserved for us from Hegesippus the earliest ecclesias tical traditions concerning him. By that authority he is described as having been a Nazarite, and on account of Ids eminent righteousness called &quot;Just&quot; and &quot; Oblias.&quot; So great was his influence with the people that he was appealed to by the scribes and Pharisees for a true and (as they hoped) unfavourable judgment about the Messiahship of Christ. Placed, to give the greater publicity to his words, on a pinnacle of the temple, he, when solemnly appealed to, made confession of his faith, and was at once thrown down and murdered. This happened immediately before the siege. Josephus (Antiq., xx. 9, 1) tells that it was by order of Ananus the high priest, in the interval between the death of Festus and the arrival of his successor Albinus, that James was put to death: and his narrative gives tho idea of some sort of judicial examination, for he says that along with some others James was brought before an assembly of judges, by whom they were condemned and delivered to be stoned. 1 Other less important bearers of this name are (4) James, of whom all we know is that he was the &quot; son of Mary &quot; (Matt, xxviii. 56 ; Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1 ; Luke xxiv. 10) and the brother of a certain Joses (comp. Mark xv. 40 with xvi. 1), and that he is called &quot;the little,&quot; 6 //.i/cpos (A. V. &quot; the less,&quot; wrongly) ; and (5) James, who was either the father or brother of Judas, one of the apostles. The Greek gives (Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13) &quot;Judas of James.&quot; The ellipsis may, as has been shown by Winer, be sup plied either by the word &quot;father&quot; or &quot;brother.&quot; The A. V. supplies &quot;brother.&quot; But, as in both these lists within a line of the name of this Judas a similar form &quot; James of Alphasus &quot; occurs, which is in both places rendered James the &quot; son &quot; of Alphseus, as it is also in both the other lists of the apostles in St Matthew and St Mark, it seems natural to suppose that the evangelists intended the same noun to be supplied in both cases. If this be so, the James here mentioned would be a person otherwise unknown, but the father of the apostle Judas, who is distinguished as Lebba3us nnd Thaddeus, and also by St John (xiv. 22) as &quot; Judas not Iscariot.&quot; JAMES, THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF. Of the author of this epistle enough has been said in the previous article (3) ; it only remains to add in connexion with the intro ductory words thereof that probably the same reason actuated both St James and St Jude to leave out any mention that they were &quot;brethren of the Lord.&quot; We need not enter into the question of what relationship is intended by those words, though, from the mention of Joseph on each occasion where the &quot; brethren &quot; are spoken of, it is probable that they were really his children by a former marriage. Thus Jesus would be younger than those who are called &quot;his brethren,&quot; and their behaviour in rejecting his teaching for so long a time may have been partly a result of their growing up with him and regarding him as a younger member of the same family, and from familiarity becoming less willing than strangers would be to acknowledge anything which looked like an assertion of superiority. But, whatever the reason for their former un belief, it is easy to see that, when they had at length come to own Jesus as their Lord, humility would check the mention of the relationship in which they might claim to stand to Jesus, as would also a desire not to appear to place themselves in a position of close connexion with Christ, to which none others could lay claim. The epistle is addressed &quot; to the twelve tribes which are of the dispersion.&quot; The word &quot;dispersion&quot; (Siao-Tropu) was employed in the New Testament times to signify the Jewish population in every part of the then known world. Jews were to be found in Persia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and indeed in all the lands surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. When the writer addresses them as &quot; the twelve tribes &quot; he gives us the key to the character of his epistle. It was written to Christians who had been converts from Judaism, but to whom their ancient faith was still of the very highest importance, indeed, of somewhat more import ance than it ought to have been. We can see therefore why the language of this epistle partakes so largely of the character of the preaching of John the Baptist (comp. Jas. i. 22, 27 with Matt. iii. 8; Jas. ii. 15, 16 with Luke iii. 11 ; 1 For a discussion of these traditions, and on the question whether the text of Josephus is interpolated, consult Credner, Eiiileitung, p. 581; Hilgenfeld, Einl, p. 523 seq. ; Wieseler in Jahrb. f. D. TheoL, 1878, p. 99 seq. Compare also Jerome s account of James in his book J)e vir. ill., 2, where further traditions from the Gospel according to the Hebrews are given. XIII. 70