ἀδελφός is inserted). This Judas, known as Thaddaeus by Matthew and Mark, afterwards became one of the apostles, and is expressly distinguished by St John from the traitor as “not Iscariot” (John xiv. 22).
5. James, the Lord’s brother. In Matt. xiii. 55 and Mark vi. 3 we read of a certain James as, along with Joses and Judas and Simon, a “brother” of the Lord. The exact nature of the relationship there implied has been the subject of much discussion. Jerome’s view (de vir. ill. 2), that the “brothers” were in reality cousins, “sons of Mary the sister of the Lord’s mother,” rests on too many unproved assumptions to be entitled to much weight, and may be said to have been finally disposed of by Bishop Lightfoot in his essay on “The Brothers of the Lord” (Galatians, pp. 252 sqq., Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, pp. 1 sqq.). Even however if we understand the word “brethren” in its natural sense, it may be applied either to the sons of Joseph by a former wife, in which case they would be the step-brothers of Jesus, or to sons born to Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus. The former of these views, generally known as the Epiphanian view from its most zealous advocate in the 4th century, can claim for its support the preponderating voice of tradition (see the catena of references given by Lightfoot, loc. cit., who himself inclines to this view). On the other hand the Helvidian theory as propounded by Helvidius, and apparently accepted by Tertullian (cf. adv. Marc. iv. 29), which makes James a brother of the Lord, as truly as Mary was his mother, undoubtedly seems more in keeping with the direct statements of the Gospels, and also with the after history of the brothers in the Church (see W. Patrick, James the Brother of the Lord, 1906, p. 5). In any case, whatever the exact nature of James’s antecedents, there can be no question as to the important place which he occupied in the early Church. Converted to a full belief in the living Lord, perhaps through the special revelation that was granted to him (1 Cor. xv. 7), he became the recognized head of the Church at Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18), and is called by St Paul (Gal. ii. 9), along with Peter and John, a “pillar” of the Christian community. He was traditionally the author of the epistle in the New Testament which bears his name (see James, Epistle of). From the New Testament we learn no more of the history of James the Lord’s brother, but Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. ii. 23) has preserved for us from Hegesippus the earliest ecclesiastical traditions concerning him. By that authority he is described as having been a Nazarite, and on account of his eminent righteousness called “Just” and “Oblias.” So great was his influence with the people that he was appealed to by the scribes and Pharisees for a true and (as they hoped) unfavourable judgment about the Messiahship of Christ. Placed, to give the greater publicity to his words, on a pinnacle of the temple, he, when solemnly appealed to, made confession of his faith, and was at once thrown down and murdered. This happened immediately before the siege. Josephus (Antiq. xx. 9, 1) tells that it was by order of Ananus the high priest, in the interval between the death of Festus and the arrival of his successor Albinus, that James was put to death; and his narrative gives the idea of some sort of judicial examination, for he says that along with some others James was brought before an assembly of judges, by whom they were condemned and delivered to be stoned. Josephus is also cited by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. ii. 23) to the effect that the miseries of the siege were due to divine vengeance for the murder of James. Later writers describe James as an ἐπίσκοπος (Clem. Al. apud Eus. Hist. Ecc. ii. 1) and even as an ἐπίσκοπος ἐπισκόπων (Clem. Hom., ad init.). According to Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. vii. 19) his episcopal chair was still shown at Jerusalem at the time when Eusebius wrote.
Bibliography.—In addition to the relevant literature cited above, see the articles under the heading “James” in Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible (Mayor) and Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (Fulford), and in the Encycl. Biblica (O. Cone); also the introductions to the Commentaries on the Epistle of James by Mayor and Knowling. Zahn has an elaborate essay on Brüder und Vettern Jesu (“The Brothers and Cousins of Jesus”) in the Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vi. 2 (Leipzig, 1900). (G. Mi.)
JAMES I. (1566–1625), king of Great Britain and Ireland,
formerly king of Scotland as James VI., was the only child of
Mary Queen of Scots, and her second husband, Henry Stewart
Lord Darnley. He was born in the castle of Edinburgh on the
19th of June 1566, and was proclaimed king of Scotland on the
24th of July 1567, upon the forced abdication of his mother.
Until 1578 he was treated as being incapable of taking any real
part in public affairs, and was kept in the castle of Stirling for
safety’s sake amid the confused fighting of the early years of his
minority.
The young king was a very weakly boy. It is said that he could not stand without support until he was seven, and although he lived until he was nearly sixty, he was never a strong man. In after life he was a constant and even a reckless rider, but the weakness in his legs was never quite cured. During a great part of his life he found it necessary to be tied to the saddle. When on one occasion in 1621 his horse threw him into the New River near his palace of Theobalds in the neighbourhood of London, he had a very narrow escape of being drowned; yet he continued to ride as before. At all times he preferred to lean on the shoulder of an attendant when walking. This feebleness of body, which had no doubt a large share in causing certain corresponding deficiencies of character, was attributed to the agitations and the violent efforts forced on his mother by the murder of her secretary Rizzio when she was in the sixth month of her pregnancy. The fact that James was a bold rider, in spite of this serious disqualification for athletic exercise, should be borne in mind when he is accused of having been a coward.
The circumstances surrounding him in boyhood were not favourable to the development of his character. His immediate guardian or foster-father, the earl of Mar, was indeed an honourable man, and the countess, who had charge of the nursing of the king, discharged her duty so as to win his lasting confidence. James afterwards entrusted her with the care of his eldest son, Henry. When the earl died in 1572 his place was well filled by his brother, Sir Alexander Erskine. The king’s education was placed under the care of George Buchanan, assisted by Peter Young, and two other tutors. Buchanan, who did not spare the rod, and the other teachers, who had more reverence for the royal person, gave the boy a sound training in languages. The English envoy, Sir Henry Killigrew, who saw him in 1574, testified to his proficiency in translating from and into Latin and French. As it was very desirable that he should be trained a Protestant king, he was well instructed in theology. The exceptionally scholastic quality of his education helped to give him a taste for learning, but also tended to make him a pedant.
James was only twelve when the earl of Morton was driven from the regency, and for some time after he can have been no more than a puppet in the hands of intriguers and party leaders. When, for instance, in 1582 he was seized by the faction of nobles who carried out the so-called raid of Ruthven, which was in fact a kidnapping enterprise carried out in the interest of the Protestant party, he cried like a child. One of the conspirators, the master of Glamis, Sir Thomas Lyon, told him that it was better “bairns should greet [children should cry] than bearded men.” It was not indeed till 1583, when he broke away from his captors, that James began to govern in reality.
For the history of his reign reference may be made to the articles on the histories of England and Scotland. James’s work as a ruler can be divided, without violating any sound rule of criticism, into black and white—into the part which was a failure and a preparation for future disaster, and the part which was solid achievement, honourable to himself and profitable to his people. His native kingdom of Scotland had the benefit of the second. Between 1583 and 1603 he reduced the anarchical baronage of Scotland to obedience, and replaced the subdivision of sovereignty and consequent confusion, which had been the very essence of feudalism, by a strong centralized royal authority. In fact he did in Scotland the work which had been done by the Tudors in England, by Louis XI. in France, and by Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain. It was the work of all the strong rulers of the Renaissance. But James not only
