Chapter XXIV: Part 24

The circumstances of the times, as alluded to under the last inquiry, afford much light on the immediate object which Matthew had in view, in writing his gospel. It is true, that common readers of the Bible seldom think of it as anything else than a mere complete revelation made to all men, to lead them in the way of truth and salvation; and few are prepared for an inquiry which shall take each portion of the scriptures by itself, and follow it through all its individual history, to the very source,――searching even into the immediate and temporary purpose of the inspired writers. Indeed, very many never think or know, that the historical portions of the New Testament were written with any other design than to furnish to believers in Christ, through all ages, in all countries, a complete and distinct narrative of the events of the history of the foundation of their religion. But such a notion is perfectly discordant, not only with the reasonable results of an accurate examination of these writings, in all their parts, but with the uniform and decided testimony of all the Fathers of the Christian church, who may be safely taken as important and trusty witnesses of the notions prevalent in their times, about the scope and original design of the apostolic records. And though, as to the minute particulars of the history of the sacred canon, their testimony is worth little, yet on the general question, whether the apostles wrote with only a universal reference, or also with some special design connected with their own age and times,――the Fathers are as good authority as any writers that ever lived could be, on the opinions generally prevalent in their own day. In this particular case, however, very little reference can be made to external historical evidence, on the scope of Matthew’s gospel; because very few notices indeed, are found, of its immediate object, among the works of the early writers. But a view of the circumstances of the times, before referred to, will illustrate many things connected with the plan of the work, and show a peculiar force in many passages, that would otherwise be little appreciated.

It appears on the unimpeachable testimony of the historians of those very times, of Josephus, who was a Jew, and of Tacitus and Suetonius, who were Romans, that both before and during the civil disturbances that ended in the destruction of Jerusalem, there was a general impression among the Jews, that their long-foretold Savior and national restorer, the Messiah-king, would soon appear; and in the power of God, lead them on to a certain triumph over the seemingly invincible hosts, which even the boundless strength of Rome could send against them. In the expectation of the establishment of his glorious dominion, under which Israel should more than renew the honors and the power of David and Solomon, they, without fear of the appalling consequences of their temerity, entered upon the hopeless struggle for independence; and according to the testimony of the above-mentioned historians, this prevalent notion did much, not only to incite them to the contest, but also to sustain their resolution under the awful calamities which followed. The revolt thus fully begun, drew the whole nation together into a perfect union of feeling and interest; all sharing in the popular fanaticism, became Jews again, whereby the Christian faith must have lost not a few of its professors.

In these circumstances, and while such notions were prevalent, Matthew wrote his sketch of the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus; and throughout the whole of his narrative makes constant references, where the connection can suggest, to such passages in the ancient holy books of the Hebrews, as were commonly supposed to describe the character and destiny of the Messiah. Tracing out in all these lineaments of ancient prophecy, the complete picture of the Restorer of Israel, he thus proved, by a comparison with the actual life of Jesus of Nazareth, that this was the person, whose course throughout, had been predicted by the ancient prophets. In this way, he directly attacked the groundless hopes, which the fanatical rebels had excited, showing, as he did, that he for whom they looked as the Deliverer of Israel from bondage, had already come, and devoted his life to the disenthralment and salvation of his people from their sins. A distinct and satisfactory proof, carried on through a chain of historical evidence to this effect, would answer the purpose as fully as the written truth could do, of overthrowing the baseless imposition with which the impudent Zealots were beguiling the hopes of a credulous people, and leading them on, willingly deceived, to their utter ruin. In this book, containing a clear prediction of the destruction of the temple and Holy city, and of the whole religious and civil organization of the Jewish nation, many would find the revealed truth, making them wise in the way of salvation, though, for a time, all efforts might seem in vain; for the literal fulfilment of these solemn prophecies thus previously recorded, afterwards ensuing, the truth of the doctrines of a spiritual faith connected with these words of prediction, would be strongly impressed on those whom the consummation of their country’s ruin should lead to a consideration of the errors in which they had been long led astray. These prophecies promised, too, that after all these schemes of worldly triumph for the name and race of Israel, had sadly terminated in the utter, irretrievable ruin of temple and city,――and when the cessation of festivals, and the taking away of the daily sacrifice, had left the Jew so few material and formal objects, to hang his faith and hopes on,――the wandering ones should turn to the pure spiritual truths, which would prove the best consolation in their hopeless condition, and own, in vast numbers, the name and faith of him, whose sorrowful life and sad death were but too mournful a type of the coming woes of those who rejected him. Acknowledging the despised and crucified Nazarene as the true prophet and the long-foretold Messiah-king of afflicted Judah, the heart-broken, wandering sons of Israel, should join themselves to that oft-preached heavenly kingdom of virtue and truth, whose only entrance was through repentance and humility. Hence those numerous quotations from the Prophets, and from the Psalms, which are so abundant in Matthew, and by which, even a common reader is able to distinguish the peculiar, definite object that this writer has in view:――to show to the Jews, by a minute detail, and a frequent comparison, that the actions of Jesus, even in the most trifling incidents, corresponded with those passages of the ancient scriptures, which foreshadowed the Messiah. In this particular, his gospel is clearly distinguished from the others, which are for the most part deficient in this distinct unity of design; and where they refer to the grand object of representing Jesus as the Messiah,――the Son of God,――they do it in other modes, which show that it was for more general purposes, and directed to the conversion of Gentiles rather than Jews. This is the case with John, who plainly makes this an essential object in his grand scheme; but he combines the establishment of this great truth, with the more immediate occasions of subverting error and checking the progress of heretical opinions that aimed to detract from the divine prerogatives of Jesus. But John deals very little in those pointed and apt references to the testimony of the Hebrew scriptures, which so distinguish the writings of Matthew; he evidently apprehends that those to whom he writes, will be less affected by appeals of that kind, than by proofs drawn from his actions and discourses, and by the testimony of the great, the good, and the inspired, among those who saw and heard him. The work of Matthew was, on the other hand, plainly designed to bring to the faith of Jesus, those who were already fully and correctly instructed in all that related to the divinely exalted character of the Messiah, and only needed proof that the person proposed to them as the Redeemer thus foretold, was in all particulars such as the unerring word of ancient prophecy required. Besides this object of converting the unbelieving Jews, its tendency was also manifestly to strengthen and preserve those who were already professors of the faith of Jesus; and such, through all ages, has been its mighty scope, enlightening the nations with the clearest historical testimony ever borne to the whole life and actions of Jesus Christ, and rejoicing the millions of the faithful with the plainest record of the events that secured their salvation.

Beyond the history of this gospel, the Fathers have hardly given the least account, either fanciful or real, of the succeeding life of Matthew. A fragment of tradition, of no very ancient date, specifies that he wrote his gospel when he was about to leave Palestine to go to other lands; but neither the region nor the period is mentioned. Probably, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, he followed the eastward course of the Jewish Christians; but beyond this, even conjecture is lost. But where all historical grounds fail, monkish invention comes in with its tedious details of fabulous nonsense; and in this case, as in others already alluded to, the writings of the monks of the fourteenth century, produce long accounts of Matthew’s labors in Ethiopia, where he is carried through a long series of fabled miracles, to the usual crowning glory of martyrdom.

_Ethiopia._――The earliest testimony on this point by any
ecclesiastical history, is that of Socrates, (A. D. 425,) a
Greek writer, who says only, that “when the apostles divided
the heathen world, by lot, among themselves,――to Matthew was
allotted Ethiopia.” This is commonly supposed to mean Nubia, or
the country directly south of Egypt. The other Fathers of the
fifth and following centuries, generally assign him the same
country; but it is quite uncertain what region is designated
by this name. Ethiopia was a name applied by the Greeks to
such a variety of regions, that it is quite in vain to define
the particular one meant, without more information about the
locality.

But no such idle inventions can add anything to the interest which this apostolic writer has secured for himself by his noble Christian record. Not even an authentic history of miracles and martyrdom, could increase his enduring greatness. The tax-gatherer of Galilee has left a monument, on which cluster the combined honors of a literary and a holy fame,――a monument which insures him a wider, more lasting, and far higher glory, than the noblest ♦achievements of the Grecian or the Latin writers, in his or any age could acquire for them. Not Herodotus nor Livy,――not Demosthenes nor Cicero,――not Homer nor Virgil,――can find a reader to whom the despised Matthew’s simple work is not familiar; nor did the highest hope or the proudest conception of the brilliant Horace, when exulting in the extent and durability of his fame, equal the boundless and eternal range of Matthew’s honors. What would Horace have said, if he had been told that among the most despised of these superstitious and barbarian Jews, whom his own writings show to have been proverbially scorned, would arise one, within thirty or forty years, who, degraded by his avocation, even below his own countrymen’s standard of respectability, would, by a simple record in humble prose, in an uncultivated and soon-forgotten dialect, “complete a monument more enduring than brass,――more lofty than the pyramids,――outlasting all the storms of revolution and of disaster,――all the course of ages and the flight of time?” Yet such was the result of the unpretending effort of Matthew; and it is not the least among the miracles of the religion whose foundation he commemorated and secured, that such a wonder in fame should have been achieved by it.

♦ “achievments” replaced with “achievements”

THOMAS, DIDYMUS.

THE second name of this apostle is only the Greek translation of the former, which is the Syriac and Hebrew word for a “twin-brother,” from which, therefore, _one_ important circumstance may be safely inferred about the _birth_ of Thomas, though unfortunately, beyond this, antiquity bears no record whatever of his circumstances previous to his admission into the apostolic fraternity.

Nor is the authentic history of the apostles, much more satisfactory in respect to subsequent parts of Thomas’s history. A very few brief but striking incidents, in which he was particularly engaged, are specified by John alone, who seems to have been disposed to supply, by his gospel, some characteristic account of several of the apostles, who had been noticed only by name, in the writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Those in particular who receive this peculiar notice from him, are Andrew, Philip, Nathanael, Thomas, and John himself,――of all whom, as well as of Peter, are thus learned some interesting matters, which, though apparently so trivial, do much towards giving a distinct impression of some of the leading traits in their characters. Among those facts thus preserved respecting Thomas, however, there is not one which gives any account of his parentage, rank in life, or previous occupation; nor do any other authentic sources bring any more facts to view on these points. The only conclusion presented even by conjecture, about his early history, is, that he was a publican, like Matthew,――a notion which is found in some of the Fathers,――grounded, no doubt, altogether on the circumstance, that in all the gospel lists, he is paired with Matthew, as though there were some close connection between them. This is only a conjecture, and one with even a more insignificant basis than most trifling speculations of this sort, and therefore deserving no regard whatever. Of the three incidents commemorated by John, two at least, are such as to present Thomas in a light by no means advantageous to his character as a ready and zealous believer in Jesus; but on both these occasions he is represented as expressing opinions which prove him to have been very slow, not only in believing, but in comprehending spiritual truths. The first incident is that mentioned by John in his account of the death of Lazarus, where he describes the effect produced on the disciples by the news of the decease of their friend, and by the declaration made at the same time by Jesus, of his intention to go into Judea again, in spite of all the mortal dangers to which he was there exposed by the hatred of the Jews, who, enraged at his open declarations of his divine character and origin, were determined to punish with death, one who advanced claims which they pronounced absolutely blasphemous. This mortal hatred they had so openly expressed, that Jesus himself had thought it best to retire awhile from that region, and to avoid exposing himself to the fatal effects of such malice, until the other great duties of his earthly mission had been executed, so as to enable him, at last, to proceed to the bloody fulfilment of his mighty task, with the assurance that he had finished the work which his Father gave him to do.

But in spite of the pressing remonstrances of his disciples, Jesus expressed his firm resolution to go, in the face of all mortal dangers, into Judea, there to complete the divine work which he had only begun. Thomas, finding his Master determined to rush into the danger, which, by once retreating from it for a time, he had acknowledged to be imminent, resolved not to let him go on, alone; and turning to his fellow-disciples, said, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” The proposal, thus decidedly made, shows a noble resolution in Thomas, to share all the fortunes of him to whom he had joined himself, and presents his character in a far more favorable light than the other passages in which his conduct is commemorated. While the rest were fearfully expostulating on the peril of the journey, he boldly proposed to his companions to follow unhesitatingly the footsteps of their Master, whithersoever he might go,――thus evincing a spirit of far more exalted devotion to the cause.

The view here taken differs from the common interpretation of
the passage, but it is the view which has seemed best supported
by the whole tenor of the context, as may be decided by a
reference to the passage in its place, (John xi. 16.) The
evidence on both views can not be better presented than in
Bloomfield’s note on this passage, which is here extracted
entire.

“Here again the commentators differ in opinion. Some, as Grotius,
Poole, Hammond, Whitby, and others, apply the αὐτου to _Lazarus_,
and take it as equivalent to ‘let us go and die together with
him.’ But it is objected by Maldonati and Lampe, that Lazarus
was _already_ dead; and die like him they could not, because
a _violent_ death was the one in Thomas’s contemplation. But
these arguments seem inconclusive. It may with more justice
be objected that the sense seems scarcely natural. I prefer,
with many ancient and modern interpreters, to refer the
αὐτου to _Jesus_, ‘let us go and die with him.’ Maldonati
and Doddridge regard the words as indicative of the most
affectionate attachment to our Lord’s person. But this is
going into the other extreme. It seems prudent to hold a middle
course, with Calvin, Tarnovius, Lyser, Bucer, Lampe, and (as it
should appear) Tittman. Thomas could not dismiss the idea of the
imminent danger to which both Jesus and they would be exposed,
by going into Judea; and, with characteristic bluntness, and
some portion of ill humor, (though with substantial attachment
to his Master’s person,) he exclaims: ‘Since our Master will
expose himself to such imminent, and, as it seems, unnecessary
danger, let us accompany him, if it be only to share his fate.’
Thus there is no occasion, with Markland and Forster, apud
Bowyer, to read the words interrogatively.” (Bloomfield’s
Annotations, vol. III. p. 426, 427.)

In John’s minute account of the parting discourses of Christ at the Last Supper, it is mentioned, that Jesus after speaking of his departure, as very near, in order to comfort his disciples, told them, he was going “to prepare a place for them, in his Father’s house, where were many mansions.” Assuring them of his speedy return to bring them to these mansions of rest, he said to them, “Whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.” But so lost, for the time, were all these words of instruction and counsel, that not one of his followers seems to have rightly apprehended the force of this remark; and Thomas was probably only expressing the general doubt, when he replied to Jesus, in much perplexity at the language, “Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?” Jesus replied, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father but by me.” But equally vain was this new illustration of the truth. The remark which Philip next made, begging that they might have their curiosity gratified by a sight of the Father, shows how idly they were all still dreaming of a worldly, tangible and visible kingdom, and how uniformly they perverted all the plain declarations of Jesus, to a correspondence with their own pre-conceived, deep-rooted notions. Nor was this miserable error removed, till the descent of that Spirit of Truth, which their long-suffering and ever watchful Lord invoked, to teach their still darkened souls the things which they would not now see, and to bring to their remembrance all which they now so little heeded.

The remaining incident respecting this apostle, which is recorded by John, further illustrates the state of mind in which each new revelation of the divine power and character of Jesus, found his disciples. None of them expected his resurrection;――none would really believe it, until they had seen him with their own eyes. Thomas therefore showed no remarkable skepticism, when, hearing from the others, that one evening, when he was not present, Jesus had actually appeared alive among them, he declared his absolute unbelief,――protesting, that far from suffering himself to be as lightly deceived as they had been, he would give no credit to any evidence but that of the most unquestionable character,――that of seeing and touching those bloody marks which would characterize, beyond all possibility of mistake, the crucified body of Jesus. “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” After eight days, the disciples were again assembled, and on this occasion Thomas was with them. While they were sitting, as usual, with doors closed for fear of the Jews, Jesus again, in the same sudden and mysterious manner as before, appeared all at once in the midst, with his solemn salutation, “Peace be with you!” Turning at once to the unbelieving disciple, whose amazed eyes now for the first time fell on the body of his risen Lord, he said to him, “Thomas! Put thy finger here, and see my hands; and put thy hand here, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.” The stubbornly skeptical disciple was melted at the sight of these mournful tokens of his Redeemer’s dying agonies, and in a burst of new exalted devotion, he exclaimed, “My Lord! and my God!” The pierced hands and side showed beyond all question the body of his “Lord;” and the spirit that could, of itself, from such a death, return to perfect life, could be nothing else than “God.” The reply of Jesus to this expression of faith and devotion, contained a deep reproach to this slow-believing disciple, who would take no evidence whatever of the accomplishment of his Master’s dying words, except the sight of every tangible thing that could identify his person. “Thomas! because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they, who though not seeing, yet believe.”

“_Put thy finger here._”――This phrase seems to express the
graphic force of the original, much more justly than the common
translation. The adverb of place, ὧδε, gives the idea of the
_very place_ where the wounds had been made, and brings to the
reader’s mind the attitude and gesture of Jesus, with great
distinctness. The adverb “_here_,” refers to the print of the
nails; and Jesus holds out his hand to Thomas, as he says these
words, telling him to put his finger into the wound.

_Not seeing, yet believe._――This is the form of expression best
justified by the indefiniteness of the Greek _aorists_, whose
very name implies this unlimitedness in respect to time. The
limitation to the past, implied in the common translation, is by
no means required by the original; but it is left so vague, that
the action may be referred to the present and the future also.

Beyond this, the writings of the New Testament give not the least account of Thomas; and his subsequent history can only be uncertainly traced in the dim and dark stories of tradition, or in the contradictory records of the Fathers. Different accounts state that he preached the gospel in Parthia,――Media,――Persia,――Ethiopia,――and at last, India. A great range of territories is thus spread out before the investigator, but the traces of the apostle’s course and labors are both few and doubtful. Those of the Fathers who mention his journeys into these countries, give no particulars whatever of his labors; and all that is now believed respecting these things, is derived from other, and perhaps still more uncertain sources.

India is constantly asserted by the Fathers, from the beginning of the third century, to have very early received the gospel, and this apostle is named as the person through whom this evangelization was effected; but this evidence alone would be entitled to very little consideration, except from the circumstance, that from an early period, to this day, there has existed in India, a large body of Christians, who give themselves the name of “St. Thomas’s Christians,” of whose antiquity proofs are found in the testimony, both of very ancient and very modern travelers. They still retain many traditions of the person whom they claim as their founder,――of his place of landing,――the towns he visited,――the churches he planted,――his places of residence and his retreats for private devotion,――the very spot of his martyrdom, and his grave. A tradition, however, floating down unwritten for fifteen centuries, can not be received as very good evidence; and the more minute such stories are in particulars, the more suspicious they are in their character for truth. But in respect to the substance of this, it may well be said, that it is by no means improbable, and is in the highest degree consistent with the views, already taken, in former parts of this work, of the eastward course of the apostles after the destruction of Jerusalem. The great body of them, taking refuge at Babylon, within the limits of the great Parthian empire, the more adventurous might follow the commercial routes still farther eastward, to the mild and generally peaceful nations of distant India, whose character for civilization and partial refinement was such as to present many facilities for the introduction and wide diffusion of the gospel among them. These views, in connection with the great amount of respectable evidence from various other sources, make the whole outline of the story of Thomas’s labors in India very possible, and even highly probable.

The earliest evidence among the Fathers that has ever been
quoted on this point, is that of Pantaenus, of Alexandria, whose
visit to what was then called India, has been mentioned above;
(page 363;) but as has there been observed, the investigations
of Michaelis and others, have made it probable that Arabia-Felix
was the country there intended by that name. The first distinct
mention made of any eastward movement of Thomas, that can be
found, is by Origen, who is quoted by Eusebius, (Church History,
III. 1,) as testifying, that when the apostles separated to go
into all the world, and preach the gospel, Parthia was assigned
to Thomas; and Origen is represented as appealing to the common
tradition, for the proof of this particular fact. Jerome speaks
of Thomas, as preaching the gospel in Media and Persia. In
another passage he specifies India, as his field; and in this he
is followed by most of the later writers,――Ambrose, Nicephorus,
Baronius, Natalis, &c. Chrysostom (Oration on the 12 Apostles)
says that Thomas preached the gospel in Ethiopia. As the
geography of all these good Fathers seems to have been somewhat
confused, all these accounts may be considered very consistent
with each other. Media and Persia were both in the Parthian
Empire; and all very distant countries, east and south, were, by
the Greeks, vaguely denominated India and Ethiopia; just ♦as all
the northern unknown regions were generally called Scythia.

♦ removed duplicate “as”

Natalis Alexander (Church History, IV. p. 32,) sums up all
these accounts by saying, that Thomas preached the gospel to the
Parthians, Medes, Persians, Brachmans, Indians, and the other
neighboring nations, subject to the empire of the Parthians. He
quotes as his authorities, besides the above-mentioned Fathers,
Sophronius, (A. D. 390,) Gregory Nazianzen, (A. D. 370,) Ambrose,
(370,) Gaudentius, (A. D. 387.) The author of the imperfect
work on Matthew, (A. D. 560,) says, that Thomas found in his
travels, the three Magi, who adored the infant Jesus, and having
baptized them, associated them with him, in his apostolic labors.
Theodoret, (A. D. 423,) Gaudentius, Asterius, (A. D. 320,) and
others, declare Thomas to have died by martyrdom. Sophronius
(390,) testifies that Thomas died at Calamina, in India. This
Calamina is now called Malipur, and in commemoration of a
tradition, preserved, as we are told, on the spot, to this
effect, the Portuguese, when they set up their dominion in India,
gave it the name of the city of St. Thomas. The story reported
by the Portuguese travelers and historians is, that there was a
tradition current among the people of the place, that Thomas was
there martyred, by being thrust through with a lance. (Natalis
Alexander, Church History, vol. IV. pp. 32, 33.)

A new weight of testimony has been added to all this, by the
statements of Dr. Claudius Buchanan, who, in modern times, has
traced out all these traditions on the spot referred to, and has
given a very full account of the “Christians of St. Thomas,” in
his “Christian researches in India.”

On this evidence, may be founded a rational belief, though not an absolute certainty, that Thomas actually did preach the gospel in distant eastern countries, and there met with such success as to leave the lasting tokens of his labors, to preserve through a course of ages, in united glory, his own name and that of his Master. In obedience to His last earthly command, he went to teach “nations unknown to Caesar,” proclaiming to them the message of divine love,――solitary, and unsupported, save by the presence of Him, who had promised to “be with him always, EVEN TO THE END OF THE WORLD.”

JAMES, THE LITTLE;
THE SON OF ALPHEUS.

HIS NAME.

IT will be observed, no doubt, by all readers, that the most important inquiry suggested in the outset of the most of these apostolic biographies, is about the name and personal identification of the individual subject of each life. This difficulty is connected with peculiarities of those ancient times and half-refined nations, that may not, perhaps, be very readily appreciated by those who have been accustomed only to the definite nomenclature of families and individuals, which is universally adopted among civilized nations at the present day. With all the refined nations of European race, the last part of a person’s name marks his family, and is supposed to have been borne by his father, and by his ancestors, from the time when family names were first adopted. The former part of his name, with equal definiteness, marks the individual; and generally remains fixed from the time when he first received his name. Whenever any change takes place in any part of his appellation, it is generally done in such a formal and permanent mode, as never to make any occasion for confusion in respect to the individual, among those concerned with him. But no such decisive limitation of names to persons, prevailed among even the most refined nations of the apostolic age. The name given to a child at birth, indeed, was very uniformly retained through life; but as to the other parts of his appellation, it was taken, according to circumstances, chance or caprice, from the common name of his father,――from some personal peculiarity,――from his business,――from his general character,――or from some particular incident in his life. The name thus acquired, to distinguish him ♦from others bearing his former name, was used either in connection with that, or without; and sometimes two or more such distinctive appellations belonged to the same man, all or any of which were used together with the former, or separate from it, without any definite rule of application. To those acquainted with the individual so variously named, and contemporary with him, no confusion was made by this multiplicity of words; and when anything was recorded respecting him, it was done with the perfect assurance, that all who then knew him, would find no difficulty in respect to his personal identity, however he might he mentioned. But in later ages, when the personal knowledge of all these individual distinctions has been entirely lost, great difficulties necessarily arise on these points,――difficulties which, after tasking historical and philological criticism to the highest efforts, in order to settle the facts, are, for the most part, left in absolute uncertainty. Thus, in respect to the twelve apostles, it will be noticed, that this confusion of names throws great doubt over many important questions. Among some of them, too, these difficulties are partly owing to other causes. Their names were originally given to them, in the peculiar language of Palestine; and in the extension of their labors and fame, to people of different languages, of a very opposite character, their names were forced to undergo new distortions, by being variously translated, or changed in termination; and many of the original Hebrew sounds, in consequence of being altogether unpronounceable by Greeks and Romans, were variously exchanged for softer and smoother ones, which, in their dissimilar forms, would lose almost all perceptible traces of identity with each other, or with the original word.

♦ replace word omitted from text “from”

These difficulties are in no case quite so prominent and serious as in regard to the apostle who is the subject of this particular biography. Bearing the same name with the elder son of Zebedee, he was of course necessarily designated by some additional title, to distinguish him from the other great apostle James. This title was not always the same, nor was it uniform in its principle of selection. On all the apostolic lists, he is designated by a reference to the name of his father, as is the first James. As the person first mentioned by this name is called James, the son of Zebedee, the second is called James, the son of Alpheus; nor is there, in the enumeration of the apostles by Matthew, Mark or Luke, any reference to another distinctive appellation of this James. But in one passage of Mark’s account of the crucifixion, it is mentioned, that among the women present, was Mary the mother of James the _Little_, and of Joses. In what sense this word _little_ is applied,――whether of age, size, or dignity,――it is utterly impossible to ascertain at this day; for the original word is known to have been applied to persons, in every one of these senses, even in the New Testament. But, however this may be, a serious question arises, whether this James the Little was actually the same person as the James, called, on the apostolic lists, the son of Alpheus. In the corresponding passage in John’s gospel, this same Mary is called Mary the wife of _Clopas_; and by Matthew and Mark, the same James is mentioned as the brother of Joses, Juda, and Simon. In the apostolic lists given by Luke, both in his gospel, and in the Acts of the Apostles, Juda is also called “the brother of James;” and in his brief general epistle, the same apostle calls himself “the brother of James.” In the beginning of the epistle to the Galatians, Paul, describing his own reception at Jerusalem, calls him “James, the brother of our Lord;” and by Matthew and Mark, he, with his brothers, Joses, Juda and Simon, is also called the brother of Jesus. From all these seemingly opposite and irreconcilable statements, arise three inquiries, which can, it is believed, be so answered, as to attribute to the subject of this article every one of the circumstances connected with _James_, in these different stories.

_James, the Little._――This adjective is here applied to him in
the positive degree, because it is so in the original Greek,
[Ιακωβος ὁ μικρος, Mark xv. 40,] and this expression too, is
in accordance with English forms of expression. The comparative
form, “James, the _Less_,” seems to have originated in the
Latin Vulgate, “Jacobus Minor,” which may be well enough in that
language; but in English, there is no reason why the original
word should not be literally and faithfully expressed. The Greek
original of Mark, calls him “James, the _Little_,” which implies
simply, that he was a _little_ man; whether little in size, or
age, or dignity, every one is left to guess for himself;――but
it is more accordant with usage, in respect to such nicknames,
in those times, to suppose that he was a short man, and was
thus named to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, who
was probably taller. The term thus applied by Mark, would be
understood by all to whom he wrote, and implied no disparagement
to his mental eminence. But the term applied, in the sense of
a smaller dignity, is so slighting to the character of James,
who to the last day of his life, maintained, according to both
Christian and Jewish history, the most exalted fame for religion
and intellectual worth,――that it must have struck all who heard
it thus used, as a term altogether unjust to his true eminence.
His weight of character in the councils of the apostles, soon
after the ascension, and the manner in which he is alluded to in
the accounts of his death, make it very improbable that he was
_younger_ than the other James.

First: Was James the son of _Alpheus_ the same person as James the son of _Clopas_? The main argument for the identification of these names, rests upon the similarity of the consonants in the original Hebrew word which represents them both, and which, according to the fancy of a writer, might be represented in Greek, either by the letters of Alpheus or of Clopas. This proof, of course, can be fully appreciated only by those who are familiar with the power of the letters of the oriental languages, and know the variety of modes in which they are frequently given in the Greek, and other European languages. The convertibility of certain harsh sounds of the dialects of southwestern Asia, into either hard consonants, or smooth vowel utterances, is sufficiently well-known to Biblical scholars, to make the change here supposed appear perfectly probable and natural to them. It will be observed by common readers, that all the consonants in the two words are exactly the same, except that _Clopas_ has a hard C, or K, in the beginning, and that Alpheus has the letter P aspirated by an H, following it. Now, both of these differences can, by a reference to the original Hebrew word, be shown to be only the results of the different modes of expressing the same Hebrew letters; and the words thus expressed may, by the established rules of etymology, be referred to the same oriental root. These two names, then, _Alpheus_ and _Clopas_, may be safely assigned to the same person; and Mary the wife of Clopas and the mother of James the Little, and of Joses, was, no doubt, the mother of him who is called “James the son of Alpheus.”

_Clopas and Alpheus._――It should be noticed, that in the common translation of the New Testament, the former of these two words is very unjustifiably expressed by Cleophas, whereas the original (John xix. 25,) is simply Κλωπας. (_Clopas._) This is a totally different name from _Cleopas_, (Luke xxiv. 18, Κλεοπας,) which is probably Greek in its origin, and abridged from _Cleopater_, (Κλεοπατρος,) just as Anti_pas_ from Anti_pater_, and many other similar instances, in which the Hellenizing Jews abridged the terminations of Greek and Roman words, to suit the genius of the Hebrew tongue. But _Clopas_, being very differently spelt in the Greek, must be traced to another source; and the circumstances which connect it with the name _Alpheus_, suggesting that, like that, it might have a Hebrew origin, directs the inquirer to the original form of that word. The Hebrew חלפא (HHALPHA) may be taken as the word from which both are derived; each being such an expression of the original, as the different writers might choose for its fair representation. The first letter in the word, ח, (_hhaith_,) has in Hebrew two entirely distinct sounds; one a strong guttural H, and the other a deeply aspirated KH. These are represented in Arabic by two different letters, but in Hebrew, a single character is used to designate both; consequently the names which contain this letter, may be represented in Greek and other languages, by two different letters, according as they were pronounced; and where the original word which contained it, was sounded differently, by different persons, under different circumstances, varying its pronunciation with the times and the fashion, even in the same word, it would be differently expressed in Greek. Any person familiar with the peculiar changes made in those Old Testament names which are quoted in the New, will easily apprehend the possibility of such a variation in this. Thus, in Stephen’s speech, (Acts vii.) Haran is called Charran; and other changes of the same sort occur in the same chapter. The name Anna, (Luke ii. 36,) is the same with Hannah, (1 Samuel i. 2,) which in the Hebrew has this same strongly aspirated H, that begins the word in question,――and the same too, which in Acts vii. 2, 4, is changed into the strong Greek _Ch_; while all its harshness is lost, and the whole aspiration removed, in _Anna_. These instances, taken out of many similar ones, may justify to common readers, the seemingly great change of letters in the beginning of Alpheus and Clopas. The other changes of vowels are of no account, since in the oriental languages particularly, these are not fixed parts of the word, but mere _modes_ of uttering the consonants, and vary throughout the verbs and nouns, in almost every inflexion these parts of speech undergo. These therefore, are not considered radical or essential parts of the word, and are never taken into consideration in tracing a word from one language to another,――the consonants being the fixed parts on which etymology depends. The change also from the aspirate _Ph_, to the smooth mute P, is also so very common in the oriental languages, and even in the Greek, that it need not be regarded in identifying the word.

Taking into consideration then, the striking and perfect
affinities of the two words, and adding to these the great body
of presumptive proofs, drawn from the other circumstances that
show or suggest the identity of persons,――and noticing moreover,
the circumstance, that while Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of
Alpheus, they never speak of Clopas,――and that John, who alone
uses the name Clopas, never mentions Alpheus,――it seems very
reasonable to adopt the conclusion, that the last evangelist
means the same person as the former.

Second: Was James the son of Alpheus the same person as “James, the brother of our Lord?” An affirmative answer to this question seems to be required by the fact, that Mary the wife of Clopas is named as the mother of James and Joses; and elsewhere, James and Joses, and Juda and Simon, are called the brothers of Jesus. It should be understood that the word “_brother_” is used in the scriptures often, to imply a relationship much less close than that of the children of the same father and mother. “Cousins” are called “brothers” in more cases than one, and the oriental mode of maintaining family relationship closely through several generations, made it very common to consider those who were the _children of brothers_, as being themselves _brothers_; and to those familiar with this extension of the term, it would not necessarily imply anything more. In the case alluded to, all those to whom the narratives and other statements containing the expression, “James the brother of our Lord,” were first addressed, being well acquainted with the precise nature of this relationship, would find no difficulty whatever in such a use of words. The nature of his relationship to Jesus seems to have been that of cousin, whether by the father’s side or mother’s, is very doubtful. By John indeed, Mary the wife of Clopas is called the _sister_ of the mother of Jesus; but it will seem reasonable enough to suppose,――since two sisters, daughters of the same parents, could hardly bear the same name,――that Mary the mother of James, must have been only the sister-in-law of the mother of Jesus, either the wife of her brother, or the sister of her husband; or, in perfect conformity with this use of the term “sister,” she may have been only a cousin or some such relation.

The third question which has been originated from these various statements,――whether James, the brother of Jesus and the author of the epistle, was an APOSTLE,――must, of course, be answered in the affirmative, if the two former points have been correctly settled.

All the opinions on these points are fully given and discussed
by Michaelis, in his Introduction to the epistle of James. He
states five different suppositions which have been advanced
respecting the relationship borne to Jesus by those who are in
the New Testament called his brothers. 1. That they were the
sons of Joseph, by a former wife. 2. That they were the sons
of Joseph, by Mary the mother of Jesus. 3. That they were the
sons of Joseph by the widow of a brother, to whom he was obliged
to raise up children according to the laws of Moses. 4. That
this deceased brother of Joseph, to whom the laws required
him to raise up issue, was Alpheus. 5. That they were brothers
of Christ, not in the strict sense of the word, but in a more
lax sense, namely, in that of cousin, or relation in general,
agreeably to the usage of this word in the Hebrew language.
(Genesis xiv. 16: xiii. 8: xxix. 12, 15: 2 Samuel xix. 13:
Numbers viii. 26: xvi. 10: Nehemiah iii. 1.) This opinion which
has been here adopted, was first advanced by Jerome, and has
been very generally received since his time; though the first
of the five was supported by the most ancient of the Fathers.
Michaelis very clearly refutes all, except the first and the
fifth, between which he does not decide; mentioning, however,
that though he had been early taught to respect the latter, as
the right one, he had since become more favorable to the first.

The earliest statement made concerning these relations of Jesus, is by John, who, in giving an account of the visit made by Jesus to Jerusalem, at the feast of the tabernacles, mentions, that the brethren of Jesus did not believe in him, but, in a rather sneering tone, urged him to go up to the feast, and display himself, that the disciples who had formerly there followed him, might have an opportunity to confirm their faith by the sight of some new miracle done by him. Speaking to him in a very decidedly commanding tone, they said, “Depart hence, and go into Judea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that does anything in secret, while he himself seeks to be widely known; if thou do these things, show thyself to the world.” The whole tenor of this speech shows a spirit certainly very far from a just appreciation of the character of their divine brother; and the base, sordid motives, which they impute to him as ruling principles of action, were little less than insults to the pure, high spirit, which lifted him so far above their comprehension. The reply which Jesus made to their taunting address, contained a decided rebuke of their presumption in thus attacking his motives. “My time is not yet come, but yours is always ready. The world can not hate you, but me it hates, because I testify of it that its works are evil. Go ye up to this feast; but I am not going yet; for my time is not yet fully come.” They might always go where mere inclination directed them, nor was there any occasion to refer to any higher object. But a mighty scheme was connected with his movements, to which he directed every action. In his great work, he had already exposed himself to the hatred of the wicked, and his movements were now checked by a regard to the proper time for exposing himself to it; and when that time should come, he would unhesitatingly meet the results.

By a passage in Mark’s gospel, it appears also, that at the first beginning of the ministry of Jesus, his relations generally were so little prepared for a full revelation of the character and destiny of him with whom they had long lived so familiarly as a brother and an intimate, that they viewed with the most disagreeable surprise and astonishment, his remarkable proceedings, in going from place to place with his disciples,――neglecting the business to which he had been educated, and deserting his family friends,――preaching to vast throngs of wondering people, and performing strange works of kindness to those who seemed to have no sort of claim on his attention. Distressed at these strange actions, they could form no conclusion about his conduct that seemed so reasonable and charitable, as that he was beside himself, and needed to be confined, to prevent him from doing mischief to himself and others, by his seemingly extravagant and distracted conduct. “And they came out to lay hold on him, for they said ‘He is beside himself.’” With this very purpose, as it seems, his brothers and family relations had come to urge and persuade him back to their home if possible, and stood without, utterly unable to get near him, on account of the throngs of hearers and beholders that had beset him. They were therefore obliged to send him word, begging him to stop his discourse and come out to them, because they wanted to see him. The request was therefore passed along from mouth to mouth, in the crowd, till at last those who sat next to Jesus communicated the message to him,――“Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.” Jesus fully apprehending the nature of the business on which their ill-discerning regard had brought them thither, only suspended the train of his discourse to make such a remark as would impress all with the just idea of the value which he set upon earthly affections, which were liable to operate as hindrances to him in the great work to which he had been devoted; and to convince them how much higher and stronger was the place in his affections held by those who had joined themselves to him for life and for death, to promote the cause of God, and to do with him the will of his Father in heaven,――in the striking language of inquiry, he said, “Who is my mother or my brethren?” Then looking with an expression of deep affection around, on those who sat near him, he said, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister and mother.” It appears by this remark, as well as by another passage, that he had not only brothers, but sisters, who lived at Nazareth at that time, and were well known as his relations. No mention however is any where made of his father; so that it would appear that Joseph was now dead.

This remarkable faithlessness on the part of the brothers of Jesus, may be thought to present an insuperable difficulty in the way of the supposition that any of them could have been numbered with the apostles. But great as seems to have been their error, it hardly exceeded many that were made by his most select followers, even to the time of his ascension. All the apostles may be considered to have been in a great measure unbelievers, until the descent of the Holy Spirit,――for until that time, on no occasion did one of them manifest a true faith in the words of Jesus. Times almost without number, did he declare to them that he should rise from the dead; but notwithstanding this assertion was so often made to them in the most distinct and solemn manner, not one of them put the slightest confidence in his words, or believed that he would ever appear to them again after his crucifixion. Not even the story of his resurrection, repeatedly and solemnly attested by the women and others, could overcome their faithlessness; so that when the risen Lord, whose words they had so little heeded, came into their presence, moved with a just and holy anger, “he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not those who had seen him after he was risen.” So that his brothers at this early period, can not be considered any worse off than the rest of those who knew and loved him best; and if any are disposed to oppose the view that his brethren were apostles, by quoting the words of John, that “neither did his brethren believe in him,” a triumphant retort may be found in the fact, that NEITHER DID HIS APOSTLES BELIEVE IN HIM.