Cleophas

ON ST. CLEOPHAS, DISCIPLE OF CHRIST,

Sect. I.

SYLLOGE

Cleophas, disciple of Christ (S.)

BY J. S.

§ I. The memory of the Saint in the Latin and Greek calendars: his cultus: his deeds from the Gospel, and what is added from elsewhere.

Baronius in the Roman Martyrology on this day has, in the first place, as follows. Cleophas among the Latins on the XXV of September At the village of Emmaus, the birthday of blessed Cleophas, the disciple of Christ, whom they relate to have been slain by the Jews for the confession of Him, in the same house in which he had prepared a table for the Lord, and to have been buried with glorious memory. In the Annotations he cites as martyrologists Bede, Ado, Usuard, and other Latins; but the Greeks in the Menology at the III Ides of October. Yet the Greeks commemorate St. Cleophas, not on the XIII of October, but on the XXX day of that same month. Moreover the genuine Martyrology of Bede makes no mention of St. Cleophas. The first among the Latins seems to have been the author of the Little Roman Martyrology, published by Rosweyde, in which on the XXV of September we read thus: Of Cleophas, to whom the Lord appeared on the road after His resurrection. Ado has the same on that day. But in the little book on the Festivities of the Apostles he records more about St. Cleophas, in this manner, at the VII Kalends of October: The birthday of Cleophas, who was one of the seventy Disciples of Christ. To whom, as he was going with another fellow-disciple to a village named Emmaus, which is now called Nicopolis, the Lord appeared after His resurrection. Whom they relate to have been slain by the Jews, in that same town and in that same house in which he had prepared a table for the Lord as though for a stranger, for the confession of Him whom he had there recognized, and to have been buried also with glorious memory. Usuard has the same somewhat more briefly, and to his text our Sollerius enumerates the ancient martyrologists who either omitted or announced St. Cleophas, in these words: Of Cleophas there is nothing in the Hieronymian martyrologies, nor in Bede, Florus, Rabanus, Wandelbert. The first to note him was the Author of the Little Roman,… Ado in his Martyrology, .. and Notker copied it almost so. But Usuard's elogium is contracted word for word from the Festivities of the Apostles. Yet on what authority the martyrdom asserted by Ado rests, I have not thus far discovered.

[2] Peter de Natalibus, book 8, chapter 118, hands down nearly the same things, commemorated in the Martyrologies, by the Greeks on the XXX of October writing thus: Cleophas was one of the seventy-two disciples. He was one of those two to whom, as they were going to the village of Emmaus, the Lord appeared on the day of His resurrection; and being invited by them, He reclined at table with them: and they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread. The other is said to have been Luke the evangelist. And they relate that this man, at that same village of Emmaus, in the same house in which he had prepared a table for the Lord, was slain by the Jews after the dispersion of the Disciples in Judea, for the confession of Christ, and was buried with glorious memory: and that he suffered on the VII Kalends of October. These things are in the Martyrology of Ado, taken from the writings of Jerome and from ancient Chronicles. The Martyrology of Auxerre, published by Martène in volume 6 of the Ample Collection, has the same more briefly. The Author of the manuscript Florarium relates similar things also, and adds that he was slain in the year of Salvation XXXVI. But neither did that man know, I suppose, the year of St. Cleophas's death; nor did Peter de Natalibus know the day. The latter called the day, on which he saw him marked by Ado, the day of his death: but that day seems to have been chosen at will by the author of the Little Roman, because the day of his passing was not established. The other, moreover, is accustomed to assign by conjecture a year of death to most Saints, but rarely without error. I pass over the more recent martyrologists, who commonly announce St. Cleophas. The Greeks in the Menæa and in the Sirletian Menology make a very brief mention of St. Cleophas on the XXX of October, and after their manner name him an Apostle.

[3] The cultus of St. Cleophas in the Teutonic Order, St. Cleophas is venerated in the Teutonic Order, as our Predecessors had long ago noted, and as has been further confirmed to me from a pair of Breviaries of the said Order, in whose Calendar the feast of St. Cleophas is found on the XXV of September. The whole Office of the Saint was transcribed from the pair of Breviaries of the Teutonic Order — the one of the year 1500, the other of the year 1609 — and sent to me from Mechlin by the care of the Rev. Fr. Martin Raepsaet, S. J. In both he is celebrated, as a disciple of the Lord and a martyr, with an Office of three lessons, in which the antiphons at the Magnificat and at the Benedictus are composed from the words of Luke, and the collect runs thus: Being appeased, we beseech Thee, O Lord, by the supplication of blessed Cleophas, Thy martyr and disciple, both grant us pardon and bestow everlasting remedies. Through our Lord, etc. For the lessons of the older Breviary, three others, and those shorter, were substituted in that which was published in the year 1609 at Innsbruck by order of the archduke Maximilian, who then presided over the Teutonic Order as Master. The earlier ones began thus: Today the Church celebrates the birthday of blessed Cleophas, martyr and disciple of the Lord. Who was the husband of Mary, the sister of the Mother of God: and was the brother of the guardian of our Lord Jesus Christ: and was also one of the seventy-two disciples: who recognized the Lord after His resurrection in the breaking of bread: who also, at the village of Emmaus, in the same house in which he had prepared a table for the Lord, had been slain by the Jews for the confession of Him, and was buried with glorious memory. All these things are believed of St. Cleophas, and will be discussed at greater length below. The rest I pass over, because they are not historical, but general statements about martyrdom, or moral admonitions.

[4] and the lessons of his Office. The lessons of the later Office I subjoin entire: Cleophas was one of the disciples to whom, as they were going to Emmaus and conferring together about the things which had been done at Jerusalem in the death of Christ, our Lord and Saviour so appeared that He was not recognized by them, until, the Scriptures and the Prophets having been expounded by Christ, they gradually advanced to a fuller knowledge of the Lord. When therefore the day was now declining toward evening, and they had constrained the Lord — who made as though He would go further — to remain together with them, at length in the course of supper their eyes were opened. For they recognized Him, as He reclined with them at table, in the breaking of the bread. And they themselves, having soon returned to Jerusalem, carried the news of this thing to the eleven Apostles, and testified that they had enjoyed the sight of the Lord. In the book of Hebrew Places St. Jerome does not hesitate to relate that holy Cleophas was a native of Emmaus, once a noble town. Hence also it is handed down in the ancient Acts that blessed Cleophas, the disciple of Christ, was slain by the Jews at the village of Emmaus, in the same house in which he had prepared a table for the Lord, for the confession of Him, and buried with a glorious death. Thus far the lessons, in which there is plainly omitted what was read in the earlier ones concerning his kinship with St. Joseph and with his spouse, the most blessed Virgin Mary. But of all these matters I shall treat more fully.

[5] The things which are almost the only certain ones about the deeds of St. Cleophas, St. Luke relates in his Gospel, chapter 24. To Cleophas, going to Emmaus with a companion, the Lord appears unknown, That passage proves that St. Cleophas was one of Christ's Disciples. But since he was not one of the twelve Apostles, we must say that he was one of the Seventy-two. On the very day of Christ's Resurrection he was going with another Disciple to the village of Emmaus, where we shall see that the house of St. Cleophas was. But since he had almost cast away the hope he had conceived concerning Christ, because of His death, he seems meanwhile to have wished to withdraw home, perhaps with one of his sons (for he had sons too who were Disciples of Christ, if he was the brother of St. Joseph), that he might remain there until he should learn what he ought thereafter to do. To him thus doubting, Christ deigned to appear along the way, and little by little to remove all doubt, in the manner in which the aforesaid Luke recounts it in these words: And behold, two of them (of Christ's Disciples) went the same day (on which the Lord rose) to a village which was in the distance of sixty stadia (or a journey of two hours and a half) from Jerusalem, named Emmaus. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that while they conversed and reasoned with themselves: Jesus Himself also drawing near went with them: but their eyes were held, that they should not know Him. And He said to them: What are these discourses that you hold one with another as you walk, and are sad? And one of them, whose name was Cleophas, answering, said to Him: Art Thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things that have been done there in these days? To whom He said: What things? And they said: Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in work and word, before God and all the people: and how our chief priests and princes delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. But we hoped that it was He that should have redeemed Israel: and now besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done. Yea and certain women also of our company terrified us, who before it was light were at the sepulchre, and not finding His body, came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels, who say that He is alive. And some of our people went to the sepulchre: and found it so as the women had said, but Him they found not.

[6] And He said to them: O foolish and slow of heart

to believe, [and He instructs them on the way: they recognize Him at supper, and report everything to the Apostles.] in all things which the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning Him. And they drew nigh to the village whither they were going: and He made as though He would go farther. But they constrained Him, saying: Stay with us, because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent. And He went in with them. And it came to pass, whilst He was at table with them, He took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew Him: and He vanished out of their sight. And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst He spoke in the way, and opened to us the Scriptures? And rising up the same hour, they went back to Jerusalem: and they found the eleven gathered together, and those that were with them, saying: The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way: and how they knew Him in the breaking of the bread. But the aforesaid appearance of Christ is narrated briefly thus in Mark, chapter 16: And after that He appeared in another shape to two of them walking, as they were going into the country: and they going told it to the rest: neither did they believe them.

[7] [It is more probable that Cleophas was not present at the following appearance also;] But since in the aforesaid Luke and Mark another appearance of Christ the Lord is immediately related, it may be asked whether St. Cleophas was present at this one too, and consequently whether he saw the Lord twice on the very day of the resurrection. If the words of Luke alone were to be weighed, I should say without hesitation that it occurred when Cleophas with his companion was among the Apostles, and was setting forth to them the things seen on the journey and in the house, while they supped with Jesus. For in Luke, verse 36, these things about the following appearance are at once subjoined: Now whilst they were speaking these things, Jesus stood in the midst of them, and saith to them: Peace be to you, etc. These words indeed seem to insinuate that Jesus appeared in the midst of the Disciples while Cleophas with his companion was setting forth to the Apostles the appearance made to himself. But from the rest of the chapter it is abundantly clear that St. Luke there narrated the things done in various appearances so consecutively that there seems to be only a single appearance, and even Christ's own ascension into heaven seems to be connected with that same appearance. Wherefore we must consider what the account of the other Evangelists seems to require, since those words, Now whilst they were speaking these things, may easily be understood of the Apostles, who after the departure of Cleophas and his Companion went on speaking of their vision and Peter's; nor did they give credence to them, at least most of them did not, as Mark testifies in the words just given, Neither did they believe them (that is, Cleophas and his companion). But this incredulity of most of them, which Christ reproached them with in the following appearance, in some way insinuates that St. Cleophas and his companion had departed, after they had laboured in vain to persuade the Apostles of Christ's resurrection. For the Apostles had a supper to take, which those two had already taken, and on that occasion perhaps they departed, in order that, wearied from the journey, they might give themselves to rest.

[8] because Mark seems to exclude him altogether; Whatever, further, was the reason for their going away, the aforesaid Mark at verse 14 seems altogether to exclude Cleophas from the following appearance, writing thus: At length He appeared to the eleven as they were at table: and He upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen Him after He was risen again. This appearance John also relates in chapter 20, beginning thus at verse 19: Now when it was late that same day (of the Resurrection), the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the Disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. And when He had said this, He shewed them His hands and His side. The Disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord, etc. Now indeed I judge that it must be said outright that the appearance which Mark relates is the same as that related by John and Luke, since the words themselves clearly insinuate it, even though none of the Evangelists narrated all the circumstances of that appearance. That the appearance which Luke and John narrate occurred on the very day of the Lord's Resurrection, all agree.

[9] But Mark seems to be treating of that appearance just as much as Luke and John. Yet St. Augustine, book 3 On the Agreement of the Evangelists, chapter 25, discusses many things ambiguously on both sides, as to whether the same appearance was related by Mark also. First he is moved by that word at length, which seems to designate the last appearance of all; but he confesses that difficulty to be a slight one, since it can easily be understood of the last appearance of that day. Another difficulty is that Mark says the Lord appeared to the Eleven, though Thomas was not present, as is clear from John. But this objection again vanishes if we consider that eleven is taken for the college of the Apostles, who were eleven after the fall of Judas, as Luke takes the same word at verse 33, and they found the Eleven gathered together. A third difficulty is raised by Augustine, that Mark records the ascension of Christ in such a way as if it had occurred after that appearance. But Luke again does the same, and Mark's later words can be referred to another time no less easily than Luke's words. Wherefore the reproach of incredulity, which Mark relates in the appearance, seems to outweigh all these considerations, since on that first day the Lord took away incredulity from the ten Apostles, and after eight days from Thomas as well. And so that reproach does not seem to fit the last appearance, when all the Apostles firmly believed Christ's resurrection. But it fits most perfectly the last hours of the day of the Resurrection, when the Apostles gave credence neither to Mary Magdalene, nor to the other women, nor to Peter, nor to Cleophas and his companion — all of whom had seen the Lord raised up — nor at last even to their own eyes, as they saw Him standing with them, until by many words, and by showing His hands and feet and side, and finally by asking for food and eating it, He took away their incredulity. Wherefore scarcely any doubt is left me that Mark, Luke and John narrated the same appearance; although the two former immediately subjoined some later matters. Now that St. Cleophas was not present at the said appearance, but had gone out with his companion, and perhaps with St. Thomas and others, before the Lord came, is insinuated by the account of St. Mark, who names the Apostles alone as reclining at table — especially since neither John nor Luke mentions others, and since the Lord then gave those commands which seem to fit the Apostles alone.

[10] Who was St. Cleophas's companion on the journey cannot be said with certainty, Cleophas's companion was perhaps Simon his son, since about him the ancient writers, as much as the more recent ones, have gone off into differing opinions. But since Cleophas was going home, as I shall presently prove, I suspect that it was one of his sons, whom we know to have been disciples of the Lord. Wherefore I should not believe it was Luke, nor Nathanael, nor St. Peter. But the opinion of Origen, book 2 against Celsus, number 62, is more pleasing to me, where he is called Simon. To this St. Basil also assents, on Isaiah chapter 6, number 186. For among the sons of Cleophas (if this man be the same as the Cleophas who was St. Joseph's brother, as most believe) was St. Simon or Simeon, the second bishop of Jerusalem, and a disciple of Christ, who could have gone home with his father. For that the house of Cleophas was in the town of Emmaus, which was afterwards restored by the Romans, who named it Nicopolis, St. Jerome testifies in the book On Hebrew Places, writing thus at the word Emmaus: Emmaus, of which place was Cleophas, whom Luke the evangelist mentions: this is now Nicopolis, a notable city of Palestine.

[11] Again Jerome, in the Epitaph of St. Paula, or in Epistle 108 (elsewhere 27) to Eustochium, number 8, writes these things about St. Paula: since he seems to have withdrawn to his own house, which he had at Emmaus. And having resumed her journey to Nicopolis, which was formerly called Emmaus, near which the Lord was recognized in the breaking of the bread, she dedicated the house of Cleophas into a church. Calmet in the Biblical Dictionary at the word Cleophas sets down this observation against those assertions of St. Jerome: But if Cleophas be believed to be the father of SS. James, Jude, Simeon and Joses, and likewise the brother of Joseph, his domicile is placed nowhere rather than in Galilee, whence he seems to have drawn his origin. But I do not see why he should wish Cleophas to have drawn his origin from Galilee, since he was of the tribe of Judah, just as St. Joseph was, and of the stock of David, who drew his origin from Bethlehem of Judah, although he dwelt at Nazareth for reasons unknown to us. But if Joseph was by origin from Bethlehem, so also was his brother Cleophas — so that for this very reason it becomes far more probable that he was an inhabitant of Emmaus than of Galilee. The one occasion, therefore, rather than reason, on which Calmet wished him to be sprung from Galilee, is this: that he wishes to reckon several of his named sons among the twelve Apostles; for which cause also he believed him to have been called by another name Alphæus, at the word Alphæus. But that opinion of Calmet's has been sufficiently dealt with in the Dissertation prefixed to the preceding volume.

§ II. The kinship of Cleophas with St. Joseph, the Blessed Virgin, and Christ the Lord: his sons commonly called Brethren of the Lord: if however he be the same as the Disciple.

[ ] Cleophas was the brother of St. Joseph, and the paternal uncle of Christ: There remain some things to be inquired into concerning the kinship of St. Cleophas. Hegesippus, a most ancient writer, in Eusebius book 3 chapter XI, asserts that St. Joseph, the spouse of the most blessed Virgin, and St. Cleophas, whom the Greeks call Clopas and Cleopas, were brothers. For, says Eusebius, Hegesippus testifies that Cleopas was the brother of Joseph. Hence Eusebius himself, agreeing with Hegesippus, says that Simeon, the son of Cleophas — whom he teaches to have been elected bishop of Jerusalem after James — is believed to have been the cousin of Christ the Lord, in that sense, namely, in which St. Joseph was called the father of Christ, as being the spouse of Mary His Mother. Hegesippus says the same in various places in Eusebius, namely in book 3 chapter 32, where the martyrdom of St. Simeon is treated, who is there twice called the son of Cleopas, and in one place there is added ὁ ἐκ Θείου τοῦ Κυρίου, who was the son of the Lord's paternal uncle, or who was born of the Lord's paternal uncle. The same again Hegesippus says in Eusebius book 4 chapter 22, where the election of Simeon is narrated, who is there both called Simeon son of Cleopas, and is said to have been born of the Lord's paternal uncle, and finally is named ἀνέψιος, cousin of Christ — so that no doubt remains that Hegesippus believed Cleophas to have been the brother of St. Joseph and the paternal uncle of Christ the Lord according to the opinion of men, and his son Simeon the cousin of Christ. It could indeed be said here that the Greek words Θεῖος and ἀνέψιος are ambiguous, and in the former

is signified a paternal or a maternal uncle, and by the second a paternal or a maternal cousin. But Hegesippus himself removed that ambiguity, when he taught that St. Cleophas was the brother of St. Joseph, so that no doubt remains that he is called the paternal uncle of Christ, not the maternal, and his son Simeon a cousin on the father's side, not on the mother's. Now this Simeon, or Simon — which is the same name — was one of those who in the Gospel are called the Brethren of the Lord. St. Epiphanius, Heresy 66, chapter 19, similarly says that St. Cleophas was the brother of St. Joseph, and the paternal uncle of Christ, and the father of St. Simeon. Wherefore the most weighty authority in these matters, on account of the antiquity of Hegesippus, seems to suffice — especially with Eusebius and Epiphanius agreeing — for us to hold that opinion about the brothers Joseph and Cleophas as historically certain, as it is now commonly held by the principal historians.

[13] We have St. Cleophas's brother and one son. Let us proceed to investigate his wife, that by her help we may find his other sons also. In St. John's Gospel, chapter 19, we read these things: Mary of Cleophas, who was the sister of the Mother of the Lord, Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His Mother, and His Mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. Matthew, chapter 27, verse 56, reckons these among the women, the most holy Virgin Mary being omitted: Among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee, who was called Salome. Mark, chapter 15, verse 40, expresses the same women thus: Among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, and Salome. From the passages cited a twofold doubt arises: namely, whether Mary of Cleophas is the same as the Mary who is called by Matthew and Mark the mother of James and Joseph, just as Salome and the mother of the sons of Zebedee are certainly the same. The other is whether Mary is called of Cleophas from her father or from her husband. For this is ambiguous in the case of women. St. Jerome in the book against Helvidius, who from the passages cited was attacking the virginity of the Mother of the Lord, after he had discussed some things on both sides for the resolving of Helvidius's argument, at length leaves the proposed question undecided in these words: But in this part I do not draw out the rope of contention: let Mary of Cleophas be one woman, and Mary of James and Joses another, provided it be established that Mary of James and Joses is not the same as the Mother of the Lord. On this matter indeed no Catholic doubts; but on the question which Jerome as a young man there refused to decide, the learned of later centuries have been much divided.

[14] Yet St. Jerome seems afterwards to have decided the question, she seems to be the same as Mary the mother of James and Joses, when he was writing on the Gospel of St. Matthew, where at the words cited he has thus: But let us see what sort of companions (Christ) had among the women: Mary Magdalene, … and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, His mother's sister, the sister of Mary the Mother of the Lord, etc. Whence did St. Jerome know that that Mary was the sister of the Mother of the Lord, except from the cited passage of St. John, where Mary of Cleophas is named and is said to be the sister of the Mother of Christ? Certainly Jerome could have had it from no other passage of Scripture. And that he has it from John, Jerome himself clearly insinuates elsewhere. In the Catalogue of ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 2, he says of St. James the Brother of the Lord, But as it seems to me, the son of Mary the sister of the Mother of the Lord, of whom John makes mention in his book. John mentions Mary of Cleophas, whom he asserts to be the sister of the Mother of the Lord; but he records no sister of the Mother of the Lord besides this one, so that Jerome now most clearly makes her the same as the Mary of James — of whom he there treats — and mother of Joseph or Joses. The same is the opinion of Chrysostom, who, as we shall see below, believes James the Brother of the Lord to be the son of Cleophas: and the same is that of all others who believe Cleophas to be the father of St. James.

[15] To me also it seems most probable and as it were certain, for these reasons. as is shown by various arguments: First, besides the Mother of the Lord, Magdalene and Salome, nowhere are two Marys commemorated together, neither beneath the cross, nor at the buying of spices, nor at the visiting of the sepulchre; but in all these the other Mary is frequently mentioned with Magdalene, so that it would be strange that those two, Mary of Cleophas and Mary of James, if they are to be distinguished, were never commemorated together. Secondly, it is necessary that Mary the mother of James and Joses should have been joined to the Mother of the Lord by the closest kinship or affinity, since her sons were called Brethren of the Lord. But it is established that Mary of Cleophas was the sister of the Mother of the Lord, whether by blood or by affinity through their husbands. On this side, therefore, it is most likely that Mary of Cleophas is herself the mother of James and Joses, lest we be forced to attribute to the most blessed Mary two sisters, both of them Marys. Baronius in the Apparatus, number 67, wished to distinguish Mary of Cleophas from Mary the mother of James, and says that John speaks of some women, Matthew and Mark of others, since John says that they stood beside the cross, and the others that they stood afar off. But Mary Magdalene is numbered by all among the said women, so that it is certain that the same women are treated of by John and by the other Evangelists. And so either they stood at such a moderate distance that they could be said both to stand afar off and also to stand beside the cross; or perhaps at first for fear they were far from the cross, and then in the darkness came nearer with John. However the matter stands, Baronius's argument from Mary Magdalene is shown to be faulty, and our most likely opinion will be still further strengthened by what is to be said.

[16] Mary of Cleophas seems to have been the wife of Cleophas, I proceed to the other doubt, whether Mary of Cleophas was the wife or the daughter of Cleophas; or rather I undertake to prove that she was his wife, not his daughter, as Baronius also judged in the place just cited. First, various Fathers reckon St. Cleophas to be the father of St. James the Brother of the Lord, and consequently reckon Mary of Cleophas, who is his mother, to be the wife of St. Cleophas. Chrysostom in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 1, observes that James is called by Paul the Brother of the Lord for honour's sake; and he says that James could have been called by another name James of Cleophas, which surname the Evangelist — namely John — set down, when he called the mother of James Mary of Cleophas, that is, the wife of Cleophas. Theodoret, on that passage of the Epistle to the Galatians, agreeing with Chrysostom, likewise says James was the son of Cleophas and of the sister of the Mother of the Lord, that is, of Mary of Cleophas. Eusebius, book 3 chapter 32, insinuates the same opinion more obscurely, when he infers that St. Simeon the son of Cleophas was a disciple of Christ on account of the Mary of Cleophas mentioned in the Gospel, in some fashion insinuating that this disciple of the Lord was the mother of Simeon and the wife of Cleophas.

[17] and he indeed the father of those four who are called the Brethren of the Lord: What the aforesaid Fathers judged, holy Scripture probably insinuates. Mark 6, verse 3, Christ the Lord is called the brother of James and Joseph and Jude and Simon. Certainly this manner of speaking insinuates that all those four were brothers. It is confirmed from elsewhere also that all were brothers, at least by the same father. For Simon was the son of Cleophas, as is established from Hegesippus. James and Joseph or Joses were the sons of Mary of Cleophas, and consequently of Cleophas too. For if anyone should wish to contend that Mary was rather the daughter of Cleophas, he will make Simon the maternal uncle of the other two, and thus they were not in the same degree of consanguinity with Christ — which is improbable, since they are called brothers in the same way. Nothing therefore more probable can we say than that those three were the cousins of Christ, as being the sons of Cleophas, who was the brother of St. Joseph. The same again must be said of Jude, who at the beginning of his Epistle asserts himself to be the brother of James. There is added this reason, that the name of brethren of the Lord, with which they are frequently honoured in the Scriptures, altogether persuades that they were joined to Christ by a very close kinship. But no closer kinship can probably be found than if they be believed sons of Cleophas, and so cousins of the Lord. For that opinion of certain ancients, by which St. Joseph is set down as the father of the four Brethren of the Lord, is commonly repudiated as improbable by more recent writers, as contrary to the virginity of St. Joseph. St. Jerome on Matthew chapter 12, verse 47, explodes it in these words: Some suspect the Brethren of the Lord to be sons of Joseph by another wife, following the ravings of the apocrypha, and inventing a certain little woman Melcha or Escha. The falsity of that opinion is shown by this brief reasoning. In Christ's last years the mother of James the Less and of Joses was living, and the most blessed Virgin Mary was living too. Wherefore either St. Joseph would have put away his former wife in order to marry the other; or he would have had two wives at once. Both are equally absurd, and, of Joseph, a just man, utterly incredible.

[18] Another reason again, which persuades that Mary of Cleophas was his wife, [Mary of Cleophas seems the sister of the Mother of the Lord, because they were married to two brothers.] is drawn from this, that she is called by John the sister of the Mother of the Lord. For the more probable opinion asserts that the most blessed Virgin Mary was the only daughter of her parents, and that she had no brothers or sisters, as was set forth in St. Anne, at the XXVI of August. There is added the name Mary borne by both, whereby it becomes less likely that they were sisters strictly so called. And certainly Cleophas was not the father of the Mother of the Lord, so that she cannot be a sister strictly so called of the most blessed Virgin, if she was the daughter of Cleophas, as those will have it who contend that she was not his wife. For if Mary of Cleophas was his daughter, the Mother of the Lord was her paternal aunt, not her sister. Wherefore those who will not admit that that Mary was the wife of Cleophas will find difficulties entangled on every side. On the contrary, in our opinion there is nothing unusual, nothing unheard of, nothing entangled. For those two Marys are called sisters, because they were the wives of two brothers: which is so usual and ordinary even in our own times that I do not know whether any women joined by such affinity are wont to use other names. Wherefore I judge that all would readily embrace this opinion, were they not held back by another consideration. They have perceived, namely, that the Brethren of the Lord cannot be at once the sons of Cleophas and of Alphæus. But since they wish absolutely that James of Alphæus and James the Brother of the Lord be the same, they would gladly assign in place of Cleophas some Alphæus as the husband of Mary of Cleophas. But neither from the Scriptures, nor from Hegesippus or a like ancient writer, does that necessity arise, but from an opinion which they attempt to defend against all antiquity (see the Dissertation prefixed to the preceding volume).

[19] Let us therefore briefly consider how many absurdities flow from that opinion The opinion by which Mary of Cleophas is set down as his daughter is refuted. which sets down Mary the mother of James and Joses as the daughter of Cleophas and the wife of an Alphæus unknown to the Scriptures. First, they make Simon the son of Cleophas the maternal uncle of James and Joses,

as I have already said. But this is improbable, because thus he alone, or with Jude alone, would have been the cousin of Christ, and the two others one degree more remote from Christ. Besides, the sons of Cleophas would have been much greater in age than James and Joseph. But these things are incredible, since all are called Brethren of the Lord in the same way. Secondly, Mary the daughter of Cleophas would have had the Mother of the Lord, as I have already said, for a paternal aunt. This again is incredible, both because she is called her sister, and because her sons James and Joses were older in birth than Christ, as the more common opinion certainly holds. Thirdly, since they make this Cleophas the same as the one to whom the Lord appeared, they do not seem to have considered how great an age they must attribute to him after the Passion of the Lord, if he was the grandfather of St. James the Less. Tillemont, volume 1, Note 3 on St. James the Less, discussing his age, by conjecture makes him about eleven or twelve years older than Christ, that is, attributes to him forty-four or forty-five years. If therefore we believe his grandfather to have been only forty years older, which is certainly little enough, he was eighty-four or eighty-five years old at the time when he is read to have completed a journey of sixty stadia twice on the same day. But whether it is likely enough that so aged an old man measured five miles of an hour on foot, I leave to prudent men to consider. But those men will find, in all that is narrated of St. Cleophas, no indications at all of so great an age. I shall not answer again those who would have St. Cleophas called by another name Alphæus, or who said that the name of Cleophas and of Alphæus is the same in Syriac: for those fictions our Papebroch long ago refuted at the XXVI of May, in St. Alphæus.

[20] The silence of Hegesippus is no obstacle, It remains for us to examine the reason which moved Baronius in the Apparatus, number 67, to believe that James the Brother of the Lord and Simon or Simeon the son of Cleophas were not brothers. Hegesippus in Eusebius mentions both often, and does not say that they were full brothers to one another, he says, and for that reason he believes they were not brothers. It is true, as that most eminent writer observes, that James and Simeon are nowhere called brothers in express words by Hegesippus. But this reason is not pressing, since neither is Jude, one of the Brethren of the Lord, who himself said he was the brother of James, called by Hegesippus the brother of James, although he mentioned him and his descendants in book 3, chapters 20 and 32. Wherefore it must be said that Hegesippus did not set forth the genealogies and kinships of those about whom he wrote; but only from time to time briefly insinuated some things about their kinship, in order to distinguish them from others of the same name, or to indicate those men themselves more clearly. Of James, whom he is accustomed to surname either Brother of the Lord or the Just — by which names he was best known — he nowhere says of what father he was born, or what brothers he had. Yet from the Scriptures it is certain that James had at least two brothers, namely Joses and Jude. Of Jude Hegesippus says that he was one of the Brethren of the Lord, nor yet does he name his father or his brothers. Of Simeon he declares in various places that he was born of the Lord's paternal uncle, and was His cousin; but he does not indicate in express words that he was one of those who were called Brethren of the Lord. Yet the kinship with Christ that is asserted sufficiently insinuates that Simeon was one of them, especially since Simeon's age agrees: he, since he is said to have suffered at the age of a hundred and twenty years about the year 107, was certainly some years older in birth than Christ the Lord. Wherefore the silence of Hegesippus ought to be no obstacle.

[21] to our believing the four brethren of the Lord to be the sons of Cleophas: Indeed Hegesippus, in Eusebius book 4 chapter 22, in some fashion even insinuates that James and Simeon were brothers, when he writes these things in Greek: Καὶ μετὰ τὸ μαρτυρῆσαι Ιάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον, ὡς καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἐπὶ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ, πάλιν ὁ ἐκ Θείου αὐτοῦ Συμεὼν ὁ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ καθίσταται ἐπίσκοπος· ὃν προέθεντο πάντες, ὄντα ἀνέψιον τοῦ Κυρίου δεύτερον. By these words it is insinuated that James as much as Simeon was a cousin of the Lord, and thereby it is at the same time hinted that they were brothers, especially since Hegesippus commemorated no other paternal uncle of the Lord besides Cleophas. The Latin interpretation, which appears less accurate in Valesius, I shall give word for word. After James the Just had been taken off by martyrdom, just as the Lord also was, for the same reason, again Symeon of Cleophas, born of His (the Lord's) paternal uncle, is constituted bishop: whom all preferred (or put forward), as being the second cousin of the Lord. First, by the word again it is hinted that James likewise had been born of the Lord's paternal uncle, and the same is more clearly insinuated when Simeon is called the second cousin of the Lord. Valesius wished to express the sense of the words in freer language; but he strayed from the true sense, when he said that he was declared the second bishop: for the word second seems altogether to be referred to cousin. Nothing therefore prevents our believing that all those four who are called brethren of the Lord were the sons of Cleophas, as the more common and truer opinion holds.

[22] It is less certain whether all were also of the same mother, Mary of Cleophas. For in Mark 15, verse 40, Mary is called the mother of James the Less and of Joseph. Those alone are named as her sons in Matthew 27, verse 56 also. but it is less established whether all are of the same mother. Hence arises the suspicion that the others were not Mary's sons, but that Jude and Simon were born of some earlier wife of Cleophas. Yet this is quite uncertain. For since the Evangelists did not there undertake to enumerate Mary's sons, but named those two so that Mary might be made known and distinguished from women of the same name — which was sufficiently done by those two — it is not necessary that we should say she was not the mother of the others also. This doubt therefore I prefer to leave, rather than to embrace one side or the other without suitable reasons.

[23] For the rest, I see yet another doubt raised concerning St. Cleophas, It can also be doubted whether the father of the brethren of the Lord namely, whether the Cleophas to whom the Lord appeared is to be reckoned the same as the father of the brethren of the Lord and the husband of Mary. Our Papebroch, from the age of the St. Cleophas who was the father of the brethren of the Lord, suspects in several places that today's Cleophas is a certain younger and different man. This reason could be added. The house of today's Cleophas was at Emmaus, near Jerusalem. But the brethren of the Lord dwelt with Jesus and Mary the Mother of the Lord in Galilee. They seem therefore to have been the sons of another Cleophas. Certainly the people of Nazareth in Matthew 13 and Mark 6 say that the four brethren of Jesus are among them, so that there is no doubt that for a notable time at least they dwelt with the most blessed Virgin in Galilee. But these reasons do indeed introduce a doubt, yet they do not certainly prove that the father of the Brethren of the Lord was one Cleophas, and the disciple to whom the Lord appeared another. For it is likely that this man was of more advanced age, since he is not read to have preached the Gospel, or to have survived long after the Passion of the Lord. But the age of his sons does not require that we attribute to Cleophas a greater age than between sixty and seventy years.

[24] is the same Cleophas as the disciple to whom the Lord appeared. But for what cause the sons of Cleophas dwelt with the most blessed Virgin, and perhaps earlier with St. Joseph, we cannot declare with certainty. Yet the dwelling of nephews with an uncle or an aunt is not so unusual or unheard of that we should for that cause be forced to look for another Cleophas — especially since, besides other reasons, the lovable manners of Jesus and Mary could have moved Cleophas to send his sons where they would have the most perfect exemplars of all the virtues. Yet even so it by no means becomes certain that today's Cleophas is the same as the brother of St. Joseph and the father of the Brethren of the Lord, who might long since have been dead: for no passage of Holy Scripture indicates it with certainty, nor the authority of Hegesippus or of the other ancients. Wherefore I do not understand on what ground some would have it plainly certain and beyond doubt. I should prefer to confess that it seems uncertain whether Cleophas the disciple of Christ, or another older man, was the father of the Brethren of the Lord. Yet I judged that this kinship must be discussed, because it is at least probably attributed to today's Cleophas; since none of the ancients asserted that there were two different men, nor does any reason certainly persuade it. If perchance there were two, the discussion has been about both at once; but besides the Disciple none is venerated.