Luke identifies one of the men on the road to Emmaus as Cleopas (Luk 24:18) , who is most likely not the same as the Clopas John mentions as the husband of Mary (Joh 19:25) who was with Mary Magdalene at the sepulcher when Jesus was interred by Joseph of Arimathea (Mat 27:61), and again when they discovered the tomb empty very early on Resurrection Sunday (Mat 28:1), and again later that morning when Jesus Himself appeared to them (Mat 28:9). This second Mary is also identified as the mother of James and Joseph (Mat 27:56). By what additional appellation does Mark note that the second Mary’s son James was called? See Mar 15:40. What does the fact that he was surnamed the Less (or smaller or younger) seem to indicate about another James from which he was to be distinguished? Who might that James have been? Note that since there are two different men named James in the list of Jesus’ twelve apostles, the tradition arose that this Mary’s son must have been the second of the two, designated the Less, so as to distinguish him from James the brother of John, who was clearly supposed to be “the Greater”, being spoken of more often in Scripture. But see Luk 22:24-27, and note that this identification is nowhere made certain in Scripture. See also Mat 10:3, Mar 3:18, Luk 6:15 and note whom all agree was the father of this second of Jesus’ apostles named James—not Clopas. Nevertheless, to support the tradition, many came to believe either that Clopas was Mary’s father and not her husband, or that Clopas was another name for Alphaeus, i.e., that they were the same person, or that Mary was originally married to Alphaeus, who died leaving no sons, and Clopas was his brother who entered into a Levirate marriage with Mary to raise up James her son as a son for Alphaeus, who then became an apostle of Jesus. Although possible, there is nothing in Scripture other than the moniker the Less to actually support the conjecture that the second Mary’s son James was one of Jesus’ apostles, which in order to believe also requires an even greater departure from Occam’s Razor to resolve the issue of Clopas and Alphaeus. Also recall that James the brother of John was put to death by Herod c. 44 AD (Acts 12:1-2), likely before Mark penned the gospel as we now have it, after which there would no longer be a need to distinguish Mary’s son from him. In this regard, it is more likely that Mary’s son James was designated the Less (or smaller or younger) to distinguish him from some other James, perhaps Jesus’ brother who became the head of the church in Jerusalem.
Even more remote from what the Scriptures actually support was another tradition, based on the misunderstanding that Joh 19:25 only referred to three women, that this second Mary, who is closely associated with Mary Magdalene, was the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. I.e., according to this tradition, both Mary the mother of Jesus and her sister were named Mary. However, considering how unlikely it is that two sisters would be given the same name, it is much more likely that there were four women at the cross whom John mentions, and Mary’s sister was actually Salome; cf. Mar 15:40. Also recall that the other Mary in question is closely associated in Scripture with Mary Magdalene, not Mary the mother of Jesus. Nevertheless, on the basis of this theory, since two of Jesus’ brothers were named James and Joseph (Mat 13:55), as were the two sons of this other Mary (Mat 27:56), Jerome, arguing hundreds of years later in support of the perpetual virginity of Jesus’ mother Mary, asserted that Jesus’ brothers James and Joseph were actually the sons of this other Mary, the sister of His mother Mary, and so kinsmen, but not true brothers. From this confusion arose the further confused understanding that “James the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19), who was also known as James the Just, who became the head of the church in Jerusalem, and was the author of our epistle of James, was also Jesus’ apostle, James the Less, though the actual son of His mother’s sister by Clopas (or Alphaeus). But see Joh 7:5, which would seem to contradict that one of Jesus’ brothers could have been one of the apostles. What does such confusion remind us about the danger of making unfounded assumptions based solely upon names, and not accepting the simplest explanation, in this case that there were multiple people named James, and Mary, those being among the most common names at the time (James is actually our English form of Jacob, the patriarch of the twelve tribes of Israel, and Mary is a form of Miriam, Moses’ sister)? What does it also teach us about the danger of elevating traditions above the simple reading of Scripture and seeking fanciful explanations for answers to questions that Scripture itself doesn’t ask, especially to support doctrines (like the perpetual virginity of Mary) for which there is otherwise no Scriptural support? Should we imagine that even though the Gentile Christians who soon filled the Church, especially after the first century, were nearer in both time and culture to the first disciples of Jesus, that they necessarily had access to knowledge beyond what we have in Scripture upon which they could know for certain that such traditions were true? Considering that such traditions often developed hundreds of years or more after the fact, should we imagine that those who proposed them necessarily had any more understanding of the nuanced details of the actual facts than we have of circumstances that happened hundreds of years ago in our past for which we have no other historical record?
EXTRA:
The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Research Methodology
By Ralph Woodrow
Author of Babylon Mystery Religion (Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Assn., 1966) based on The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (1807-1862). Woodrow took his own book out of print after discovering the unreliable history upon which the books were based.
…
Take enough names, enough stories, and enough centuries; translate from one language to another; and a careless writer of the future might pass on all kinds of misinformation, Gerald Ford, and American president, might be confused with Henry Ford, the car manufacturer. Abraham Lincoln might end up as the inventor of the automobile, the proof being that many cars had the name “Lincoln”. The maiden name of Billy Graham’s wife is Bell. She has sometimes gone by the name Ruth Bell Graham. The inventor of the telephone was Alexander Graham Bell. By mixing up names, someone might end up saying Billy Graham was the inventor of the telephone; or that he invented Graham Crackers. In fact, the inventor of Graham Crackers was Sylvester Graham. Again, similarities could be pointed out. Both men were named Graham. Both men were ministers. But the differences make a real difference: Sylvester was a Presbyterian and Billy a Baptist, and they were from different generations.