heir was born of the brother's widow, all was done, which the law required: but according to this opinion Jofeph had four fons, and feveral daughters by his brother's widow, and that too at a time, when his own wife was alive, by whom according to the fame opinion he had no children.

4. The preceding opinion may be delivered, with fome alteration, in the following manner that Jofeph's decealed brother, to whom the laws required, that he fhould raife iffue, was Alphæus. In this cafe, James and Judas who are called brothers of Jefus, will be the fame as the Apoftles James and Judas, who are called fons of Alphæus, Matth. x. 3. But, if this reprefentation be true, Alphæus cannot be the fame perfon with Clopas, as is frequently fuppofed: for Clopas had in marriage the fifter of Jofeph's wife.

5. According to the fifth opinion, which was first advanced by Jerom, and has been very generally received, James, Jofeph, Simon, and Judas, were brothers of Chrift, not in the ftrict fenfe of the word 'brother,' but in a more lax fenfe, namely, in that of coufin, or relation in general, agreeably to the ufage of this word in the Hebrew language. And the relationship of these four perfons to Jefus is derived according to this opinion, not from the fide of Jofeph, but from that of Mary, and in the following manner. James and Judas are the fame as the Apostles, James and Judas, who were fons of Alphæus: confequently, Alphæus was the father alfo of Simon and Jofes. Further, Alphæus is the fame person with Clopas, for the Hebrew name may be expreffed in Greek either by Αλφαίος or by Κλωπας. Now Clopas married the fifter of Chrift's mother, who was likewife called Mary': confequently, the fons of Clopas were first coufins of Jefus,

and

Not Cleopas, for the Greek name is Kawwas. St. Luke ch. xxiv. 18. fpeaks of a Cleopas (Katomas), but he appears to be a different perfon, Κλεοπας being a contraction for Κλεοπάτρος,

See John xix. 25. Matth. 56. Mark xv. 40,

and in this extended fenfe of the word adenos 2 James, Jofes, Simon, and Judas called adexpo Te Inte Now this opinion, to which I formerly fubt appears to me at prefent lefs probable: for it d entirely on the queftion, whether Axpaios and Kawzaç are only two different names of one and the fame perfon called in Hebrew, which is poffible and nothing more. Appeal indeed is made to Gal. i. 19. where St. Paul fays, έτερον δε των αποτόλων εκ είδον, ει μη Ιακωβον, τον αδελφον τε Κύριε, which feems to imply, that James, who was called the brother of the Lord, was one of the twelve Apoftles. But this is not a neceffary inference; for St. Paul might intend only to fay, that he had feen no other Apoftle than St. Peter, whom he had just mentioned, but that he faw James the brother of the Lord. Further, there is a difficulty attending the circumftance, that Jofeph and Clopas married two fifters, each of which was called Mary. It is very unufual for two fifters to have the fame name, except where, in addition to the name, which they have in common, they have each of them another name: but in this cafe it is ufual to denote them, not by their com mon, but by their particular names. I think it therefore probable that Mary, the wife of Clopas, was not properly the fifter of Mary, the wife of Jofeph, but only her coufin, or relation.

Of the five opinions, which I have thus enumerated, there are only two, which, in my opinion, are at all probable; and thefe are the firft, and the last. Which of thefe two ought to be preferred, I will not undertake to determine. I was formerly attached to the latter, because I had been taught from my youth that it was the true one, and had heard it fupported by very fpecious arguments. But the more I have examined it, the more I have doubted of its truth: and at present it appears to me lefs probable, than the firft opinion. I fhall leave the question however undetermined, and argue in the following fections hypothetically.

SECT. II.

Whether the author of this Epiftle was an Apoftle; and if he was, whether he was the elder or the younger Apoftle James.

I

F it be granted, that the author of this Epiftle was an Apostle, notwithstanding he has not affumed this title, and it be admitted at the fame time, that James, the brother, or coufin of Christ, was one of the twelve Apoftles, the queftion to be afked is, which of the Apoftles was the author, fince there were two Apostles called James? The one, who was called the elder James, was fon of Zebedee, and brother of John; he was one of the three Apoftles, in whom Chrift placed the greateft confidence, who alone were witneffes to the raifing of Jairus's daughter from the dead, to the transfiguration of Chrift on the mount, and to his agony in the garden. He likewife fuffered martyrdom not many years after the death of Chrift. The other Apoftle James was the fon of Alphæus; and this is the James, to whom they, who adopt the fifth opinion mentioned in the preceding fection, afcribe the Epiftle in question.

There are very ancient traditionary reports, which attribute the Epiftle to the elder James, the fon of Zebedee. In the Codex Corbeienfis, the manufcript of the old Latin verfion, published by Martianay and Sabatier, the fubfcription to this Epifle is, Explicit epiftola Jacobi, filii Zebedæi.' In the Syriac verfion, into which the Epiftle of St. James, the firft of St. Peter, and the first of St. John, have alone been admitted as canonical, these three Epiftles have the fol

lowing

lowing joint fubfcription, according to the edition of Widmanftadt. In the name of our Lord Jefus Christ, we here close the three Epiftles of James, Peter, and John, who were witneffes to the revelation of our Lord, when he was transfigured on mount Tabor, and who faw Mofes and Elias fpeaking with him.' In the edition of the Syriac verfion published by Tremellius, the fubfcription is to the fame purport, though more concife: The three Epiftles of the three Apostles, before whofe eyes our Lord was transfigured, namely, James, Peter, and John.' According to this fubfcription then the elder James, the fon of Zebedee, was the author of this Epiftle: for he, and not the younger James, the fon of Alphæus, was prefent at the transfiguration. In the Polyglot Bibles however this fubfcription is omitted: nor is there any fubfcription of this kind in the Polyglot Arabic verfion, as fome have fuppofed. On the contrary, the Arabic verfion publifhed by Erpenius, which was made from the Syriac verfion, has both a fuperfcription and a fubfcription to the Epiftle of St. James, in which the Epiftle is afcribed to James the brother of the Lord.' Now James, called the brother of Jefus, could not poffibly be the elder James, the fon of Zebedee: but was either the fon of Alphæus, or not in the number of the twelve Apoftles. Profeffor Haffencamp, in his Remarks on the latter part of my introduction, has quoted two other authorities, and both of them Syrian, which attribute the Epiftle to James the brother of the Lord. The one is Ephrem, who fays, Iaxwbos, & ry Κύριε αδελφος, λεγει· Πενθήσατε και κλαύσατε, ὁ γελως ύμων εις πενθος μεταγραφητω, και ἡ χαρα εις κατηφείαν, which words are taken from James iv. 9. The other authority is a Syrian miffal, preferved in the Vatican, and defcribed in Affemani Cat. MSS. Vatic. T. II. p. 344. From this miffal is quoted the following paffage : Tao] pb)? (po? Law Lib! on Docs, 12008 hudo.

с

e Published at Marburg, in 1767.

The

The authorities (if fubfcriptions deferve the name) which I have quoted in the beginning of the preceding paragraph, in favour of the opinion, that the elder James, the fon of Zebedee, was the author of our Epiftle, I have alleged, not with a view of prepoffeffing the reader in its favour, but merely to fhew what the ancients have thought on this fubject. However, I do not agree with many modern writers, who think, that the opinion is abfurd. For this reafon Lardner confidered it as unworthy of a confutation: but Benfon, who likewife rejected the opinion, did not think it fo contemptible, for he has brought the following arguments against it, to each of which I will make a reply.

1. James the elder was beheaded about the year 43 or 44. If therefore he was the author of our Epiftle, it must have been the firft written of all the apoftolic Epiftles. But this is not probable, because it was the ufual practice of the Apostles, first to preach the Gospel verbally, then to pay one or more vifits to the Chriftian communities, and laft of all to write to them.'

Anfwer. If we admit, that St. Paul followed this Tule, from whofe Epiftles Dr. Benfon appears to have derived it, it is no neceffary confequence, that other Apostles obferved it, and that none of them wrote an Epistle to a Chriftian community, in which he had not verbally taught, or to which he had not already paid one or more vifits: for if an Apoftle was prevented from going in perfon, this very circumftance might induce him to communicate inftructions by letter. But this rule is not true, even when applied to St. Paul. For he wrote to the Romans and Coloffians, before he had ever feen them: and the Epiftles to the Galatians and the Theffalonians were written almoft immediately after their converfion, or at leaft as foon as we may fuppofe, that the elder James wrote, after the converfion of another community.

$ 4

2. Before