[17] The supposed relationship may be exhibited thus:—
| Mary = Joseph. | Mary = Clopas or Alphæus. | ||||||||
| | | |||||||||
| JESUS CHRIST. | James the Apostle. | Joseph. | Simon | Judas | |||||
| (Apostle?). | (Apostle?). | ||||||||
[18] It seems to be right to take this opportunity of preventing a name of great authority from being any longer quoted as favouring the identification. Dr. Döllinger, in his Christenthum und Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung (1860), translated by H. N. Oxenham as The First Age of Christianity and the Church, advocated the identification (chap. iii.). The venerable author told the present writer, in June, 1877, that he was convinced that his earlier opinion on this subject was entirely erroneous, and that the Apostle James of Alphæus was a different person from James Bishop of Jerusalem and brother of the Lord. He added that the Eastern Church had always distinguished the two, and that their identification in the West was due to the influence of Jerome.
The evidence of Martyrologies and Calendars is worth noting as indicating the tradition on the subject. The Hieronymian Martyrology and other early Roman Martyrologies commemorate James of Alphæus June 22nd, and James the Lord's brother December 27th; the Ambrosian Liturgy, James of Alphæus December 30th, and the Lord's brother May 1st; the Byzantine Calendar, James of Alphæus October 9th, and the Lord's brother October 23rd; the Egyptian and Ethiopic Calendars, James of Alphæus October 2nd, and the Lord's brother October 23rd.
[19] Alford, Farrar, Meyer, Schaff, Stier, Weiss, Wieseler, Winer, and others support this view. See also McClellan's note on Matt. xiii. 55, and Plumptre's Introduction to St. James. Bishop Lightfoot contends for the Epiphanian theory.
[20] Comp. Strom. VI. viii., where Clement speaks of James, Peter, John, Paul (note the order) as possessing the true gnosis, and knowing all things.
[21] Hegesippus evidently distinguishes James the brother of the Lord from any of the Twelve.
[22] It is incredible that he should be allowed the privileges of the high priest.
[23] What is the meaning of this tautology? And could a Rechabite, who was not a Jew, become a priest?