CHURCHES CONSTITUTED-Continued.

THE

CHRISTIAN REVIEW.

NO. XCIV.-OCTOBER, 1858.

ART. I.-THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE
OF JUDE.

FROM THE FRENCH OF EUGENE ARNAUD.*
*

(Continued from page 351.)

INSTEAD of proceeding, as before, to propose the third query, viz.: whether Jude the ddeλpós of Jesus Christ be the author of the Epistle, we shall change our point of view, and, to bring the true subject of discussion directly before us, inquire:

IS JUDE, THE ȧdeλpós or JESUS CHRIST, IDENTICAL WITH JUDE THE APOSTLE?

If our investigations lead us to conclude that they are two different persons, then we must inquire to which of the two the epistle should be attributed; but if, on the contrary, they prove to be one and the same, then our author is found; since, having thus far pursued a process of elimination, we have already reduced the possible authors of the epistle to Jude the Apostle, and Jude the adɛλpós of Jesus Christ.

*Translated from the Introduction to a work entitled "Recherches Critiques sur l'Epitre de Jude, présentant une Introduction a l'Epitre et un Commentaire sur chaque Verset, par EUGENE ARNAUD, Pasteur." Strasbourg and Paris, 1851. 8vo, pp. 218.

Before entering directly upon the discussion of this question, there is a preliminary one, of material consequence to us in reaching our conclusions. This has respect to the sense in which we are to understand the words ȧdɛλpoí of Jesus Christ, in the following passages: Matt. xii. 46, 47-50 (parallel pass. Mar. ii. 21, 31-35; Lu. viii. 19-21); Matt. xiii. 55, 56, (paral. pas. Mar. vi. 3); John ii. 12; John vii. 2-5, 10; Acts i. 14; Gal. i. 19; 1 Cor. ix. 5.

These passages show that Jesus Christ had ddeλpoí; but ἀδελφοί; were they brothers in the proper sense of the word, or merely relatives, more or less remote; first cousins for example. On this point opinions differ. Let us examine these two views:

First Hypothesis: The ideλpoí of Jesus Christ are, properly, his brothers.

They who hold this, differ again respecting the manner in which the relationship was formed.

a. Some think the adɛλpoí were children of Joseph by a former wife;

b. Others, that they were born of Joseph and Mary who had other children after Jesus;

c. Others still, that they were children of Joseph and the widow of a brother, who died childless.

A. Were they children of Joseph by a former wife?

This view has been supported by the ancient fathers, Hilary, Ambrose, and Epiphanius, and the critics, Augusti and J. Vorst.* In this way James, Joses, Simon and Jude (Matt. xiii. 55) would be brothers of Jesus on the father's side only. There is nothing very unnatural in this opinion, but it has the inconvenience of multiplying relatives of the same Thus there would be two classes of relatives of Jesus, brothers + proper, and own cousins, sons of Mary, sister of the mother of Jesus and wife of Clopas; § of whom several bore

name.

* De hebraismis N. T. commentarius. Leyden, 1665. 2d. ed.

† See passages cited above.

‡ Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40; 47; xvi. 1; Luke xxiv. 10.

? John xix. 25, compared with Matt. xxvii. 61; xxviii. 1, and those cited in the preceding note.

the same name, e. g: James and Joses, which names belong to two cousins, and, at the same time, to two brothers; a circumstance very extraordinary among so near relatives, and demanding some explanation on the part of the evangelists.

*

B. Were they brothers of Jesus born of Joseph and Mary? This opinion has been maintained in modern times, chiefly by Herder, and is not new. According to this, Mary, mother of Jesus, had several children of both sexes after having given birth to her first-born. This view, beside being subject to the same inconvenience with the preceding, is opposed by another consideration, which is, that, according to John xix. 26, 27, the Savior's mother was without support at the period of his passion, and, consequently, it would seem, without children; for they would hardly have suffered their mother to dwell away from them and be supported by others; more especially since among them were daughters (Matt. xiii. 56; Mar. vi. 3), whose filial affection is generally very strong, and would never have suffered them to abandon their mother, even when their brothers had done so. Some reply, it is true, that perhaps the brothers of Jesus were still unbelievers, (John vii. 5) which would render their relations with Mary disagreeable and painful, were they to dwell under the same roof. But it is hardly probable that the brothers of Jesus were unbelievers at that late period; for we find them forty days after (Acts i. 14), praying with the apostles, and Mary the mother of Jesus. Besides, the obstacle of their temporary unbelief would have disappeared to the eyes of Jesus who knew what was about to happen.

Some object again, that the adɛλpoì τov Kvpíov are almost always with Mary, the Lord's mother, from which they think we should naturally conclude that Mary was their mother. But it is remarkable that Mary is nowhere called their mother, and it might easily happen, from circumstances unknown to us, that these adɛλpoí should live with Mary with

* Briefe zweener Brüder Jesu (Jacobi et Judæ) in unserm Kan. Lemgo, 1775.

Gregory of Nyssa, and Nicephorus Callistus held it.

‡ Neander. "Planting and Training." Book IV. ch. I.

out being her sons. It would not be an astonishing matter that her nephews should dwell with her; and, even without this, might they not accompany their aunt?

To prove that Mary had other children than Jesus, some cite the two following passages: Matt. i. 25, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son," and Luke ii. 7, "And she brought forth her first-born son.

But the word translated "till" (ews ov), in this connection, excludes the time which precedes, without affecting what follows (Jessien): Joseph knew not Mary before the birth of Jesus. That he knew her afterwards, and had children by her is far from being an irrational supposition, though it cannot be concluded from this verse. See instances of this form of expression in Matt. xii.20; Gen. xxv iii. 15; 1 Sam. xv. 35.

As to the word rendered "first-bогn" (πршτÓтокоç), this is an honorary title given to Jesus in respect to his rank, and not in respect to the brothers which might perhaps be born after him; a title justified by the important position which the first-born held under the ancient economy. They were consecrated to God and considered as belonging to him. Jesus Christ belonged to God, and was consecrated to him. And, besides, when we reflect upon it, is not the title of firstborn naturally given to the first child, whether he has or has not brothers after him? When a mother gives birth to her first infant, she calls him her first-born, without knowing whether she will have others or not.

Finally, some quote Matt. xiii. 57, "A prophet is not without honor save in his own country, and in his own house." But this is a proverb familiar to the Jews and other nations, which ought to be regarded as a comparison indicating what ordinarily occurs. Moreover, oixía, like domus in Latin and

in Hebrew, signifies the family in general, which might embrace the kinsmen of the whole tribe.

C. Were they children of Joseph by the widow of his brother who died childless ? *

* Theophilact, Basle ed., 1554. Comm. in Matt., ch. xiii. p. 43, and Comm. in Gal., ch. i. p. 600.