James or rather JACOBUS (Ι᾿άκωβος, the Graecized form of the name Jacob), the name of two or three persons mentioned in the New Test.
1. JAMES, THE SON OF ZEBEDEE (Ι᾿άκωβος ὁ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου), and elder brother of the evangelist John, by one or the other of which relationships he is almost always designated. Their occupation was that of fishermen, probably at Bethsaida, in partnership with Simon Peter (Lu 5:10). On comparing the account given in Mt 4:21; Mr 1:19, with that in John 1, it would appear that James and John had been acquainted with our Lord, and had received him as the Messiah, some time before he called them to attend upon him statedly a call with which they immediately complied. A.D. 27. Their mother's name was Salome (Mt 20:20; Mt 27:56; comp. with Mr 15:40; Mr 16:1). We find James, John, and Peter association several interesting occasions in the Savior's life. They alone were present at the transfiguration (Mt 17:1; Mr 9:2; Lu 9:28); at the restoration to life of Jairus's daughter (Mr 5:42; Lu 8:51); and in the garden of Gethsemane during the agony (Mr 14:33; Mt 26:37; Lu 21:37). With Andrew they listened in private to our Lord's discourse on the fall of Jerusalem (Mr 13:3). James and his brother appear to have indulged in false notions of the kingdom of the Messiah, and were led by ambitious views to join in the request made to Jesus by their mother (Mt 20:20-23; Mr 10:35). From Lu 9:52, we may infer that their temperament was warm and impetuous. On account, probably, of their boldness and energy in discharging their apostleship, they received from their Lord the appellation of Boanerges (q.v.), or Sons of Thunder (for the various explanations of this title given by the fathers, see Suiceri Tlhes. Eccles. s.v. Βροντή, and Licke's , Commentar, Bonn, 1840, Einleitung, c; 1, § 2, p. 17). SEE JOHN. James was the first martyr among the apostles (Ac 12:1), A.D. 44. Clement of Alexandria, in a fragment preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 1, 9), reports that the officer who conducted James to the tribunal was so influenced by the bold declaration of his faith as to embrace the Gospel and avow himself also a Christian; in consequence of which, he was beheaded at the same time.
For legends respecting his death and his connection with Spain, see the Roman Breviary (in Fest. S. Jac. Ap.), in which the healing of a paralytic and the conversion of Hermogenes are attributed to him, and where it is asserted that he preached the Gospel in Spain, and that his remains were translated to Compostella. See also the fourth book of the Apostolical History written by Abdias, the (pseudo) first bishop of Babylon (Abdias, De historias certaminis Apostolici, Paris, 1566); Isidore, De viti et obitu
SS. utriusque Testam. No. LXXIII (Hagonome, 1529); Pope Calixtus I's four sermons on St. James the Apostle (Bibl. Paetr. Magn. 15:324); Mariana, De Adventet Jacobi Apostoli Majoris in Hispaniam (Col. Agripp. 1609); Baronius, Martyrologieum Romanum ad Jul. 25, p. 325 (Antwerp, 1589); Bollandus, Aeta Santorum ad Jul. 25; 6:1-124 (Antwerp, 1729); Estius Comlmm. in At. Ap. c. 12; Anot. in diffiora loca S: Script. (Col. Agripp. 1622); Tillemont, Memoires pour sertcir a l'Histoire Ecclesiastique des six premiers siecles, 1, 899 (Brussels, 1706). As there is no shadow of foundation for any of the legends here referred to, we pass them by without further notice. Even Baronius shows himself ashamed of them; Estius gives them up as hopeless; and Tillemont rejects them with as much contempt as his position would allow him to show. Epiphanius without giving, or probably having any authority for or against his statement, reports that St. James died unmarried (S. Epiph. Adv. Haer. 2, 4, p. 491, Paris, 1622), and that, like his namesake, he lived the life of a Nazarite (ibid. 3:2, 13, p. 1045).
2. JAMES, THE "SON" OF ALPHAEUS (Ι᾿άκωβος ὁ τοῦ Α᾿λφαίου), one of the twelve apostles (Mr 3:8; Mt 10:3; Lu 6:15; Ac 1:13). A.D. 27-29. His mother's name was Mary (Mt 26:56; Mr 15:40); in the latter passage he is called JAMES THE LESS (ὁ μικρός, the Little), either as being younger than James, the son of Zebedee, or on account or his low stature (Mr 16:1; Lu 24:10). There has been much dispute as to whether this is the same with "JAMES, THE LORDS BROTHER" (Ga 1:19); but the express title of Apostle given to him in this last passage, as well as in 1Co 15:7 (comp. also Ac 9:27), seems decisive as to their identity--no other James being mentioned among the Twelve except "James, the- brother of John," who was no near relative of Christ. Another question is whether he was the same with the James mentioned along with Joses, Simon, and Judas, as Christ's brethren (Mt 13:55; Mr 6:3). This depends upon the answer to two other questions: 1st. Is the term "brother" (ἀδελφός) to be taken in the proper sense, or in the general signification of kinsman, in these texts? The use of the title in the last two passages, as well as in Joh 2:12; Mt 12:46-50; Mr 3:31-35; Lu 8:19-21; Ac 1:14, in explicit connection with his mother, and in relations which imply that they were members of his immediate family, most naturally requires it to be taken in its literal sense, especially as no intimation is elsewhere convened to the contrary. SEE BROTHER.
Nor can the term "'sisters" (ἀδελφαί), employed in the same connection (Mt 13:56; Mr 6:3), be referred to other than uterine relatives. This inference is sustained by the striking coincidence in the names of the brothers in the list of the apostles (namely, James, Judas, and apparently Simon, Lu 6:15-16; Ac 1:13) with those in the reference to Christ's brothers (namely, James, Judas, Simon, and Joses, Mt 13:55; Mr 6:3), and also by the fact that "James the Less and Joses" are said to be the sons of the same Mary who was "the wife of Cleophas" (Mr 15:40; and Mt 27:56; comp. with Joh 19:25). 2nd. Who is this "Mary, the wife of Cleophas?" In the same verse (Joh 19:25) she is called "his [Christ's] mother's sister" (ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὑτοῦ, Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ, και ἡ Μαγδαληνή); and, although some interpreters distinguish between these appellations, thus making four females in the enumeration instead of three, yet the insertion of the distinctive particle Kai, "and," between each of the other terms, and its omission between these, must be understood to denote their identity. It is manifest, however, that no two sisters German would ever have the same name given to them, an unprecedented oversight that would produce continual confusion in the family; besides, the law did not allow a man to be married to two sisters at the same time (Le 18:18), as Joseph in that case would have been; nor would either of these objections be obviated by supposing the two Marys to have been half- sisters. The only plausible conjecture is that they are called sisters (i.e. sisters-in-law), because of their marriage to two brothers, Cleophas and Joseph; a supposition that is strengthened by their apparent intimacy with each other, and their similar connection with Jesus intimated in Joh 19:25. Cleophas (or Alphaeus) seems to have been an elder brother of Joseph, and dying without issue, Joseph married his wife (probably before his marriage with the Virgin, as he seems to have been much older than she) according to the Levirate law (De 25:5); on which account his oldest son by that marriage is styled the (legal) son of Cleophas, as well as (reputed half-) brother of Jesus. SEE ALPHAEUS, MARY. This arrangement meets all the statements of Scripture in the case, and is confirmed by the declarations of early Christian writers. (See No. 3, below.) The only objection of any force against such an adjustment is the statement, occurring towards the latter part of our Savior's ministry, that "neither did his brethren believe on him" (Joh 7:5), whereas two of them, at least, are in this way included among his disciples (namely, James and Jude, if not Simon); and, although they are mentioned in Ac 1:14
as subsequently yielding to his claims, yet the language in Joh 7:7 seems too decisive to admit the supposition that those there referred to sustained so prominent a position as apostles among his converts. A more likely mode of reconciling these two passages is to suppose that there were still other brothers besides those chosen as apostles, not mentioned particularly anywhere (perhaps only Joses and one younger), who did not believe on him until a very late period, being possibly convinced only by his resurrection. Indeed, if three of these brethren were apostles, the language in Ac 1:13-14, requires such a supposition; for, after enumerating the eleven' (including, as usual, James, Simon, and Jude), that passage adds, "tamed with his brethren." Whether these mentioned brothers (as indeed may also- be said of the sisters, an/d perhaps of Simon) were the children of Mary, Cleophas's widow, or of the Virgin Mary, is uncertain; yet in the expression "her first-born son," applied to Jesus (Lu 2:7), as well as in the intimation of temporary abstinence only in Mt 1:25, there seems to be implied a reference to other children SEE VIRGIN; but, be that as it may, there can be no good reason given why such should not have been the case; we may therefore conjecture that while James, Simon, Jude, and Joses were Joseph's children by Cleophas's widow, and the first three were of sufficient age to be chosen apostles, all the others were by the Virgin Mary, and among them only some sisters were of sufficient age and notoriety at Christ's second visit to Nazareth to be specified by his townsmen (Mt 13:55; Mr 6:3), Joses and the children of the Virgin generally being the "brethren" that did not believe in Jesus till late (Joh 7:5; Ac 1:14). SEE JUDE. To the objection that if the Virgin had had other children, especially sons (and still more, a half-son, James, older than any of them), she would not have gone to live with the apostle John, a comparative stranger, it may be replied that they may have been still too young (except James, who was already charged with the care of his own mother), or otherwise not suitably circumstanced to support her; and if it had been otherwise, still the express direction of Jesus, her eldest. son, would have decided her residence with "the beloved disciple," who was eminently fitted, as Christ's favorite, no less than by his amiable manner? and comparative affluence, to discharge that duty. SEE JOHN. (See Meth. Quart. Rev. Oct. 1851, p. 670-672.) See on the No. 3, below.
There have been three principal theories on the subject:
1. For the identity of James, the Lord's brother, with James the apostle, the son of Alphaeus, we find (see Routh, Reliq. Sacr. 1, 16, 43, 230
[Oxon. 1846]) Clement of Alexandria (Hypotyposeis, bk. 7, apud Eusebius, H. E. 1, 12; 2, 1) and Chrysostom (in Gal. 1:19). This hypothesis, being warmly defended by St. Jerome (in Matthew 12:49) and supported by St. Augustine (Contra Faust. 22, 35, etc.), became the recognized belief of the Western Church.
2. Parallel with this opinion, there existed another in favor of the hypothesis that James was the son of Joseph by a former marriage, and therefore not identical with the son of Alpheus. This is first found in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter (see Origen, in Matthew 13:55), the Protevangelium of James, and the Pseudo-Apostolical Constitution of the 3rd century (Thilo, Cod. Apocr. 1, 228; Const. Apost. 6:12). It is adopted by Eusebius (Comm. inl Esai. 17:6; H. E. 1, 12; 2, 1). Perhaps it is Origen's opinion (see Comm. in Joh. 2:12). St. Epiphanius, St. Hilary, and St. Ambrose we have already mentioned as being on the same side. So are Victorinus (Vict. Phil. in Gal. apud laii Script. yet. nov. coll. [Romm, 1828]) and Gregory Nyssen (Olp. 2, 844, D. [Paris ed. 1618)], and it became the recognized belief of the Greek Church.
3. The Helvidian hypothesis, put forward at first by Bonosus, Helvidius, and Jovinian, and revived by Herder and Strauss in Germany, is that James, Joses, Jude, Simon, and the sisters were all children of Joseph and Mary, while James the apostle and James the son of Alphaeus (whether one or two persons) were different from, and not alin with these "brothers and sisters" of our Lord. English theological writers have been divided between the first and second of these views, with, however, a preference on the whole for the first hypothesis. See, e.g. Lardner, 6. 495 (London, 1788); Pearson, Minor Works, 1, 350 (Oxf. 1844), and On the Creed, 1, 308; 2, 224 (Oxford, 1833); Thorndike, 1, 5 (Oxf. 1844); Horne's Introd. to I. S. 4:427 (Lond. 1834), etc. On the same side are Lightfoot, Witsits, Lampe, Baumgarten, Semler, Gabler. Eichhorn, Hug, Bertholdt, Guericke, Schneckenburger, Meier. Steiger, Gieseler, Theile. Lange, Taylor (01. 5, 20 [London, 1849]),Wilson (Op. 6, 673 [Oxf. 1859]), and Cave (Life of St. James) maintain the second hypothesis with Vossius, Basnage, Valesius, etc. The third is held by Dr. Davidson (Introd. New Test. vol. 3) and by Dean Alford (Greek Test. 4:87). Our own position, it will be perceived, combines parts of each of these views, maintaining with
(1) the identity of the two Jameses, with (2) the Levirate marriage of Joseph and the widow of Alphneus, and with (3) that these were all the children of Joseph and in part of Mary.
SEE JAMES, EPISTLE OF (below).
3. JAMES, THE BROTHER OF THE LORD (ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ Κυρίον [Ga 1:19]). Whether this James is identical with the son of Alphaeus is a question which Dr. Neander pronounces to be the most difficult in the apostolic history; it may be well, therefore, to consider more particularly under this head the arguments that have been urged in support of the negative. We read in Mt 13:55, "Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" and in Mr 6:3," Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and of Judah and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?" Those critics who suppose the terms of affinity in these and parallel passages to be used in the laxer sense of near relations have remarked that in Mr 15:40 mention is made of "Mar, the mother of James the Less and of Joses;" and that in Joh 19:25 it is said "there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene;" they therefore infer that the wife of Cleophas is the same as the sister of the mother of Jesus, and consequently that James (supposing Cleophas and Alphaus to be the same name, the former according to the Hebrew, the latter according to the Greek orthography) was a first cousin of our Lord, and on that account termed his brother, and that the other individuals called the brethren of Jesus stood in the same relation. It is also urged that in the Acts, after the death of James, the son of Zebedee, we read only of one James; and, moreover, that it is improbable that our Lord would have committed his mother to the care of the beloved disciple had there been sons of Joseph living, whether the offspring of Mary or of a former marriage. Against this view it has been alleged that in. several early Christian writers, James, the brother of the Lord, is distinguished from the son of Alphaeus, that the identity of the names Alphaeus and Cleophas is somewhat uncertain, and that it is doubtful whether the words "his mother's sister," in Joh 19:25, are to be considered in apposition with those immediately following-" Mary, the wife of Cleophas," or intended to designate a different individual, since it is highly improbable that two sisters should have had the same name. Wieseler (Studien und Kritiken, 1840, 3:648) maintains that not three, but four persons are mentioned in this passage; and that, since in Mt 27:56, and Mr 15:40, besides Mary of Magdala, and Mary, the mother of James and Joses, Salome also (or the mother of the sons of Zebedee) is named as present at the Crucifixion, it follows that she must have been the sister of our Lord's mother. But, even allowing that the sons of Alphaeus were related to our Lord, the narrative in the Evangelists and the Acts presents some reasons for suspecting that they were not the persons described as "the brethren of Jesus."
(1.) The brethren of Jesus are associated with his mother in a manner that strongly indicates their standing in the filial relation to her (Mt 12:46; Mr 3:31; Lu 8:19; Mt 13:56, where "sisters" are also mentioned); they appear constantly together as forming one family (Joh 2; Joh 12): "After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples" (Kuinoel, Comment. in Matt. 12:46).
(2.) It is explicitly stated that at a period posterior to the appointment of the twelve apostles, among whom we find "the son of Alphseus," "neither did his brethren believe in him" (Joh 7:5; Lücke's Comment.). Attempts, indeed, have been made by Grotius and Lardner to dilute the force of this language, as if it meant merely that their faith was imperfect or wavering-" that they did not believe as they should;" but the language of Jesus is decisive: "My time is not yet come, but your time is always ready; the world cannot hate you, but me it hateth" (compare this with Joh 15:18-19: "If the world hate you," etc.). As to the supposition that what is affirmed in John's Gospel might apply to only some of his brethren, it is evident that, admitting the identity, only one brother of Jesus would be left out of the "company of the apostles."
(3.) Luke's language in Ac 1:13-14, is opposed to the identity in question; for, after enumerating the apostles, among whom, as usual, is "James, the son of Alphneus," he adds, "they all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." From this passage, however, we learn that by this time his brethren had received him as the Messiah. That after the death of the son of Zebedee we find only one James mentioned, may easily be accounted for on the ground that probably only one, "the brother of the Lord," remained at Jerusalem; and, under such circumstances, the silence of the historian respecting the son of Alphieus is not more strange than respecting several of the other apostles, whose names never occur after the catalogue in Ac 1:13. Paul's language in Ga 1:19 has been adduced to prove the identity of the Lord's brother with the son of Alphmeus by its ranking him among the apostles, but others contend that it is by no means decisive (Winer, Grammatik, 4th edit., p. 517; Neander, History of the Planting, etc., 2, 5 [ Engl. translation]). Dr. Niemeyer (Charakteristik der Bibel, 1, 399 [Halle, 1830]) enumerates not less than five persons of this name, by distinguishing the son of Alphaeus from James the Less, and assuming that the James last mentioned in Ac 1:13 was not the brother, but the father of Judas. Amidst this great disagreement of views (see in Winer's Realwr. s.v. Jacobus; Davidson's Introd. to the N.T. 3, 302 sq.; Horne's Introduction, new ed. 4:591, n.; Princeton Review, Jan. 1865), the most probable solution of the main question is that given above (No. 2), identifying James, the son of Alphaeus or Cleophas with one of the apostles, the literal brother of our Lord, and the son of Mary, the sister-in-law of the Virgin by virtue of the marriage of both with Joseph (but see Alford, Proleg. to vol. 4:pt. 1 of his Comment. p. 88 sq.). This Levirate explanation is summarily dismissed by Andrews (Life of our Lord, p. 108) and Mombert (in the Am. edit. of Lange's Commentary, introd. to epist. of James, p. 19) as "needing no refutation;" but, although conjectural, it is the only one that makes it possible for James to have been at once Christ's brother and yet the son of Alphaeus. If he was likewise the same with the son of Mary, the wife of Cleophas, the theory may be said to be demonstrated. Other treatises on the subject are Dr. Mill's Accounts of our Lord's Brethren Vindicated (Cambridge, 1843); Schaff, Das Verhaltniss des Jacobus, Bruders des Herrn, und Jacobus Alphai (Berlin, 1842); Gabler, De Jacobo, epistole eidems atscriptce auctaori (Altorf, 1787). For other monographs, see Volbeding, Index Progratmatum, p. 31.
If we examine the early Christian writers, we shall meet with a variety of opinions on this subject. Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 2, 1) says that James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, brother of the Lord, son of Joseph, the husband of Mary, was surnamed the Just by the ancients on account of his eminent virtue. He uses similar language in his Evangelical Demonstration (3, 5). In his commentary on Isaiah he reckons fourteen apostles, viz. the twelve, Paul, and James, the brother of our Lord. A similar enumeration is made in the "Apostolic Constitutions" (6, 14). Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Theophylact speak of James, the Lord's brother, as being the same as the son of Cleophas. They suppose that Joseph and Cleophas were brothers, and that the latter dying without. issue, Joseph married his widow for his first wife, according to the Jewish custom, and that James and his brethren were the offspring of this marriage (Lardner's Credibility, 2, 118; Works, 4:548; 1, 163; 5, 160; Hist. of. Heretics, ch. 12 § 11; Works, 8:527; Supplement to the Credibility, ch. 17, Works, 6:188). A passage from Josephus is quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 2, 23), in which James, the brother of "him who is called Christ," is mentioned (Ant. 20:9, 1); 'but in the opinion of Dr. Lardner and other eminent critics, this clause is an interpolation (Lardner's Jewish Testimonies, ch. 4; Works, 6:496). That James was formally appointed bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord himself, as reported by Epiphanius (Haeres. 78), Chrysostom (Hom. 11 in 1 Coa. 2), Proclus of Constantinople (De Trad. Div. Liturg.), and Photius (Ep. 157), is not likely. Eusebius follows this account in a passage of his history, but says elsewhere that he was appointed by the apostles (V. Eccl. 2, 23). Clement of Alexandria is the first author who speaks of his episcopate (Hypotyposeis, bk. 6, apud Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. 2, 1), and he alludes to it as a thing of which the chief apostles, Peter, James, and John, might well have been ambitious. The same Clement reports that the Lord, after his resurrection, delivered the gift of knowledge to James the Just, to John, and Peter, who delivered it to the rest of the apostles, and they to the seventy. These views of the leadership of James in the college of the apostles agree with the account in Acts (Ac 9:27; Ac 12:17; Ac 15:13,19). According to Hegesippus (a converted Jew of the 2nd century) James, the brother of the Lord, undertook the government of the Church along with the apostles (μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων). He describes him as leading a life of ascetic strictness, and as held in the highest veneration by the Jews (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 2, 23). But in the account he gives of his martyrdom some circumstances are highly improbable (see Routh, Religuice Sacrae, 1, 228), although the event itself is quite credible (A.D. 62). In the apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews, he is said to have been precipitated from a pinnacle of the Temple, then assaulted with stones, and at last dispatched by a blow on the head with a fuller's pole (Lardner's Supplement, ch. 16, Works, 8, 174; Neander, Planting, etc., 2, 9, 22). Epiphanius gives the same account that Hegesippus does, in somewhat different words, having evidently copied it for the most part from him. He adds a few particulars which are probably mere assertions or conclusions of his own (Haeres. 29, 4; 78, 13). He calculates that James must have been ninety-six years old at the time of his death, and adds (on the authority, as he says, of Eusebius, Clement, and others) that he wore the πέταλον on his forehead, in which he probably confounds him with St. John (Polyc. apud Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. 5, 24. But see Cotta, De lain. pontf. App. Joan. Jac. et Marci [Tüb. 1755]). Gregory of Tours reports that he was buried, not where he fell, but on the Mount of Olives, in a tomb in which he had already buried Zacharias and Simon (De glor. mart. 1, 27). The monument-part excavation, part edifice which is now commonly known as the "Tomb of St. James," is on the east side of the so-called Valley of Jehoshaphat. The tradition about the monument in question is that St. James took refuge there after the capture of Christ, and remained, eating and drinking nothing, until our Lord appeared to him on the day of his resurrection (see Quaresmius, etc., quoted in Tobler, Siloah, etc., p. 299). The legend of his death there seems to be first mentioned by Maundeville (A.D. 1320-: see Early Trav. p. 176). By the old travelers it is often called the "Church of St. James." Eusebius tells us that his chair was preserved down to his time (on which see Heinichen's Excursus [Exc. Iliad Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 7:19, vol. 4:p. 957, ed. Burton]). We must and a strange Talmudic legend which appears to relate to James. It is found in the Midrash Koheleth, or Commentary on Ecclesiastes, and also in the Tract Abodah Zarah of the Jerusalem Talmud. It is as follows: "R. Eliezer, the son of Dama, was bitten by a serpent, and there came to him Jacob, a man of Caphar Secama, to heal him by the name of Jesu, the son of Pandera; but R. Ismael suffered him not, saying, That is not allowed thee, son of Dama.' He answered,' Suffer me, and I will produce an authority against thee that is lawful,' but he could not produce the authority before he expired. And what was the authority? This: 'Which if a man do, he shall live in them' (Le 18:5). But it is not said that he shall die in them." The son of Pandera is the name that the Jews have always given to our Lord when representing him as a magician. The same name is given in Epiphanius (Haeres. 78) to the grandfather of Joseph, and by John Damascene (De Fide Orth. 4:15) to the grandfather of Joachim, the supposed father of the Virgin Mary. For the identification of James of Secama (a place in Upper Galilee) with James the Just, see Mill (Historic. Criticism of the Gospel, p. 318, Camb. 1840). For the apocryphal works attributed to James, see JAMES, SPITRIOUS WRITINGS OF.