Jerome insists that the word apostle can be used only of the Twelve. If that is so, we must look for James among them. He cannot be identified with James, brother of John and son of Zebedee, who, apart from anything else, was martyred by the time of Galatians 1:19, as Acts 12:2 plainly tells us. Therefore, he must be identified with the only other James among the Twelve, James the son of Alphaeus.
(3) Jerome proceeds to make another identification. In Mark 6:3, we read: ‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses?’; and in Mark 15:40 we find beside the cross Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses. Since James the younger is the brother of Joses and the son of Mary, he must therefore be the same person as the James of Mark 6:3, who is the brother of our Lord. Therefore, according to Jerome, James the brother of the Lord, James the son of Alphaeus and James the younger are all the same person described in different ways.
(4) Jerome bases the next and final step of his argument on a deduction made from the lists of the women who were there when Jesus was crucified. Let us set down that list as given by the three gospel writers.
In Mark 15:40, it is:
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses, and Salome.
In Matthew 27:56, it is:
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and of Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
In John 19:25, it is:
Jesus’ mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Now let us analyse these lists. In each of them, Mary Magdalene appears by name. It is safe to identify Salome and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. But the real problem is: how many women are there in John’s list? Is the list to be read like this:
(1) Jesus’ mother;
(2) Jesus’ mother’s sister;
(3) Mary the wife of Clopas;
(4) Mary Magdalene?
Or is the list to be read like this:
(1) Jesus’ mother;
(2) Jesus’ mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas;
(3) Mary Magdalene?
Jerome insists that the second way is correct and that Jesus’ mother’s sister and Mary, the wife of Clopas, are one and the same person. If that is so, she must also be the Mary who in the other lists is the mother of James and Joses. This James who is her son is the man who is variously known as James the younger and as James the son of Alphaeus and as James the apostle who is known as the brother of our Lord. This means that James is the son of Mary’s sister and therefore is Jesus’ cousin.
There, then, is Jerome’s argument. Against it, at least four criticisms can be levelled.
(1) Again and again, James is called the brother of Jesus or is numbered among the brothers of Jesus. The word used in each case is adelphos, the normal word for brother. True, it can describe people who belong to a common fellowship, just as the Christians called each other brother and sister. True, it can be used as a term of endearment, and we may call someone to whom we are very close a brother. But when it is used of those who are kin, it is, to say the least of it, very doubtful that it can mean cousin. If James was the cousin of Jesus, it is extremely unlikely – perhaps impossible – that he would be called the adelphos of Jesus.
(2) Jerome was quite wrong in assuming that the term apostle could be used only of the Twelve. Paul was an apostle (Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:1). Barnabas was an apostle (Acts 14:14; 1 Corinthians 9:6). Silas was an apostle (Acts 15:22). Andronicus and Junia were apostles (Romans 16:7). It is impossible to limit the word apostle to the Twelve. Since, therefore, it is not necessary to look for James the Lord’s brother among the Twelve, Jerome’s whole argument collapses.
(3) It is, on the face of it, much more likely that John 19 :25 is a list of four women, not three, for, if Mary the wife of Clopas were the sister of Mary, Jesus’ mother, it would mean that there were two sisters in the same family both called Mary, which is extremely unlikely.
(4) It must be remembered that the Church knew nothing of this theory until AD 383, when Jerome produced it; and it is quite certain that it was produced for no other reason than to preserve the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
The theory that those called Jesus’ brothers were, in fact, his cousins must be dismissed. The facts of the case do not support it.
The Epiphanian Theory
The second of the great theories concerning the relationship of Jesus and his ‘brothers’ holds that these ‘brothers’ were, in fact, his half-brothers, sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. This is called the Epiphanian Theory after Epiphanius, who argued strongly for it in about AD 370. He did not construct it. It existed long before this and may indeed be said to be the most usual opinion in the early Church.
The substance of it already appears in an apocryphal book called the Book of James or the Protevangelium, which dates back to the middle of the second century. That book tells how there was a devout husband and wife called Joachim and Anna. Their great grief was that they did not have children. To their great joy, in their old age a child was born to them, and this too, apparently, was regarded as a virgin birth. The child, a girl, was called Mary and was to be the mother of Jesus. Joachim and Anna dedicated their child to the Lord, and when she reached the age of three they took her to the Temple and left her there in the charge of the priests. She grew up in the Temple, and when she reached the age of twelve the priests began to consider her marriage. They called together the widowers of the people, telling each man to bring his rod with him. Among those who came was Joseph the carpenter. The high priest took the rods, and Joseph’s was last. To the other rods nothing happened, but from the rod of Joseph there flew a dove which came and settled on Joseph’s head. In this way, it was revealed that Joseph was to take Mary as his wife. Joseph at first was very unwilling. ‘I have sons,’ he said, ‘and I am an old man, but she is a girl: lest I become a laughing-stock to the children of Israel’ (Protevangelium 9:1). But in the end he took her in obedience to the will of God, and in due course Jesus was born. The material of the Protevangelium is, of course, legendary, but it shows that by the middle of the second century the theory which was one day to bear the name of Epiphanius was widely held.
There is no direct evidence for this theory whatsoever, and all the support produced in its favour is of an indirect character.
(1) It is asked: would Jesus have handed the care of his mother to John, if she had other sons besides himself (John 19:26–7)? The answer is that, as far as we know, Jesus’ family were quite out of sympathy with him, and it would hardly have been possible to hand the care of his mother to them.
(2) It is argued that the behaviour of Jesus’ ‘brothers’ towards him is that of elder brothers towards a younger brother. They questioned his sanity and wanted to take him home (Mark 3:21, 3:31–5); they were actively hostile to him (John 7:1–5). But it could just as well be argued that their behaviour was due to the simple fact that they found him an embarrassment to the family in a way that had nothing to do with age.
(3) It is argued that Joseph must have been older than Mary because he vanishes completely from the gospel story and, therefore, probably had died before Jesus’ public ministry began. The mother of Jesus was at the wedding feast at Cana of Galilee, but there is no mention of Joseph (John 2:1). Jesus is called, at least sometimes, the son of Mary, and the implication is that Joseph was dead and Mary was a widow (Mark 6:3; but cf. Matthew 13 :55). Further, Jesus’ long stay in Nazareth until he was thirty years old (Luke 3:23) is most easily explained by the assumption that Joseph had died and that Jesus had become responsible for the support of the household. But the fact that Joseph was older than Mary does not by any means prove that he had no other children by her, and the fact that Jesus stayed in Nazareth as the village carpenter in order to support the family would much more naturally indicate that he was the eldest, and not the youngest, son.