The words on which Jerome lays
stress as proving that James was one of the Twelve, are found in Gal. i. 18,
19, ανηλθον εις ‘Ιεροσολυμα ισταρησαι Κεφαν, και επεμεινα προς αυτον ημερας δεκαπεντε ετερον δε των αποστολων ουκ ειδον, ει μη ‘Ιακωβον τον αδελφον του Κυριου. Bishop Lightfoot in his note
discusses whether this should be translated, ‘I saw no other Apostle save
James,’ or ‘I saw no other Apostle, but only James.’ He gives instances to show that ει μη may have the latter force, e.g. Luke iv. 27, πολλοι λεπροι ησαν εν τω ‘Ισραηλ επι ‘Ελισαιου του προφητου,
και ουδεις αυτων εκαθαρισθη ει μη Νααμαν ο Συρος, Gal. ii. 16, ου δικαιουται ανθρωπος εξ εργων νομου, εαν
μη δια πιστεως ‘Ιησου Χριστου, Apoc. xii. 27, ου μη εισελθη εις αυτην παν κοινον και ο
ποιων βδελυγμα και ψευδος, ει μη οι γεγραμμενοι εν τω βιβλιω της ζωης, ib. Ix. 4. The peculiarity of these cases is that, whereas, according
to the ordinary use, ει μη
introduces an exception to a general statement applicable to the class to which
the excepted case belongs, in the instances cited the excepted case is not
included in the foregoing class. It appears to be originally a colloquial use,
and is employed with comic effect in Aris. Eq. 185, etc. Thus here
Naaman was not one of the many lepers in Israel; they who are written in the
Book of Life are not included among those who are guilty of abomination and
falsehood; faith is not included in the works of the law, but is contrasted
with them as a different kind of justification. Accordingly St. James need not
be included among the preceding Apostles. Much in the same way we find πλην used, where we should rather have
expected αλλα, e.g. Acts xxvii. 22, αποβολη γαρ ψυχης ουδεμια εσται εξ υμων, πλην του
πλοιου. But even if we give its usual force to ει μη, it will not follow that St. James was included in the Twelve,
for there can be no doubt that in Gal. i. 19 ετερον looks
backward to Κηφαν, not forward to ‘Ιακωβον. The sentence would have been
complete at ειδον, ‘I saw Peter and none other of
the Apostles.’ Then it strikes St. Paul, as an afterthought, that the position
of James, as President of the Church at Jerusalem, was not inferior to that of
the Apostles, and he adds ‘unless you reckon James among them.’
That the term αποστολος was not
strictly confined to the Twelve appears from Heb. iii. 1, where it is used of
Christ, and from 2 Cor. viii. 23, where we find the phrase αποστολοι εκκλησιων. Compare the use of πρεσβευω in 2 Cor. v. 50, Eph. vi. 20. It
appears also from another passage in which James is mentioned, 1 Cor. xv. 4-7.
Here it is said that Jesus after His resurrection ‘appeared to Cephas, then to
the Twelve, then to above 500 brethren at once, then to James, then to all the
Apostles,’” where we should perhaps consider the term to include the Seventy,
according to the view of Irenaeus and other early writers. At any rate, there can
be no doubt as to St. Paul’s apostleship. Barnabas also is called an apostle
(Acts xiv. 4, 14), probably also Andronicus and Junias (Rom. xvi. 7), and
Silvanus (1 Thess. ii. 6).
It seems to me that the most
natural interpretation of the two passages just dealt with is that which concedes
the name ‘apostle’ in the wider sense to St. James, but makes a distinction
between him and the Twelve. We should infer the same from 1 Cor. ix. 5, 6, ‘have
we not a right to take about a wife that is a believer (αλελφην γυναικα) ως και οι λοιποι αποστολοι και οι αδελφοι του Κυριοθ και Κηφας; η μονος εγω και Βαρναβας ουκ εχομεν εξουσιαν μη εργαζεσθαι; Here οι λοιποι αποστολοι is contrasted with εγω και Βαρναβας: and apparently the ’brethren of the Lord’ and ‘Cephas’ are
particularized as being those who were known to make use of the liberty belonging
of right to them all.
If it should be argued that where
the ‘brethren of the Lord’ are distinguished from the Twelve, this may be
spoken loosely of the majority of them, and need not be understood to apply
strictly to each separate brother; that it is consistent therefore with the
supposition that James, for instance, was an Apostle, provided that Simon and
Jude were not Apostles; the answer is that the theory derives part of its
seeming strength from the coincidence of the names of three of the brethren of
the Lord and three of the Twelve Apostles. But it is impossible to suppose
repeated assertions to be made respecting the brethren of the Lord, which (on
this supposition) are untrue of him who was by far the best known among them.
Lastly it is to be noticed that neither James nor Jude claims the title of
Apostle in his Epistle, and that Jude seems to disclaim the title for himself
in ver. 17, μνησθητε των ρηματων των προειρημενων υπο των αποστολων του Κυριου. (Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle
of St. James [3d ed.; 1910; repr., Alpha Editions, 2019], xxvii-xxix)
