Artificial Intelligence for the Internet of

Everything 1st Edition William Lawless

Ranjeev Mittu Donald Sofge Ira S
Moskowitz Stephen Russell
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/artificial-intelligence-for-the-internet-of-everything-1st-
edition-william-lawless-ranjeev-mittu-donald-sofge-ira-s-moskowitz-stephen-russell/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach 4th Edition

Stuart Russell

https://textbookfull.com/product/artificial-intelligence-a-
modern-approach-4th-edition-stuart-russell/

Beginning Artificial Intelligence with the Raspberry Pi

1st Edition Donald J. Norris

https://textbookfull.com/product/beginning-artificial-
intelligence-with-the-raspberry-pi-1st-edition-donald-j-norris/

Agents of Influence Britain s Secret Intelligence War

Against the IRA Aaron Edwards

https://textbookfull.com/product/agents-of-influence-britain-s-
secret-intelligence-war-against-the-ira-aaron-edwards/

The Virtual Public Servant: Artificial Intelligence and

Frontline Work Stephen Jeffares

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-virtual-public-servant-
artificial-intelligence-and-frontline-work-stephen-jeffares/
Ethics Of Artificial Intelligence S. Matthew Liao

https://textbookfull.com/product/ethics-of-artificial-
intelligence-s-matthew-liao/

Human-Machine Shared Contexts 1st Edition William

Lawless (Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/human-machine-shared-
contexts-1st-edition-william-lawless-editor/

The Quest for Artificial Intelligence Nils Nilsson

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-quest-for-artificial-
intelligence-nils-nilsson/

Artificial Intelligence for Computational Modeling of

the Heart 1st Edition Tommaso Mansi (Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/artificial-intelligence-for-
computational-modeling-of-the-heart-1st-edition-tommaso-mansi-
editor/

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for

Business for Non-Engineers 1st Edition Stephan S. Jones
(Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/artificial-intelligence-and-
machine-learning-for-business-for-non-engineers-1st-edition-
stephan-s-jones-editor/
ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE FOR
THE INTERNET OF
EVERYTHING
This page intentionally left blank
ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE FOR
THE INTERNET OF
EVERYTHING

Edited by

WILLIAM LAWLESS
RANJEEV MITTU
DONALD SOFGE
IRA S. MOSKOWITZ
STEPHEN RUSSELL
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom
525 B Street, Suite 1650, San Diego, CA 92101, United States
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Ranjeev Mittu, Donald A. Sofge, Ira S. Moskowitz and Stephen Russell contributions to
the Work are the work of a U.S. Government employee and are in public domain.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage
and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to
seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our
arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright
Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by
the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and
experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices,
or medical treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in
evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described
herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and
the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors,
assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of
products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods,
products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-0-12-817636-8

For information on all Academic Press publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Mara Conner

Acquisition Editor: Mara Conner
Editorial Project Manager: Peter Adamson
Production Project Manager: Vijay Bharath
Cover Designer: Mark Rogers
Typeset by SPi Global, India
CONTENTS

Contributors xi

1. Introduction 1
W.F. Lawless, Ranjeev Mittu, Donald A. Sofge, Ira S. Moskowitz,
Stephen Russell

1.1 Introduction: IoE: IoT, IoBT, and IoIT—Background and Overview 1

1.2 Introductions to the Technical Chapters 3
References 16

2. Uncertainty Quantification in Internet of Battlefield Things 19

Brian Jalaian, Stephen Russell

2.1 Introduction 19
2.2 Background and Motivating IoBT Scenario 20
2.3 Optimization in Machine Learning 22
2.4 Uncertainty Quantification in Machine Learning 32
2.5 Adversarial Learning in DNN 38
2.6 Summary and Conclusion 40
References 42

3. Intelligent Autonomous Things on the Battlefield 47

Alexander Kott, Ethan Stump

3.1 Introduction 47
3.2 The Challenges of Autonomous Intelligence on the Battlefield 49
3.3 AI Will Fight the Cyber Adversary 51
3.4 AI Will Perceive the Complex World 53
3.5 AI Enables Embodied Agents 56
3.6 Coordination Requires AI 59
3.7 Humans in the Ocean of Things 60
3.8 Summary 61
References 62
Further Reading 65

v
vi Contents

4. Active Inference in Multiagent Systems: Context-Driven

Collaboration and Decentralized Purpose-Driven Team
Adaptation 67
Georgiy Levchuk, Krishna Pattipati, Daniel Serfaty, Adam Fouse,
Robert McCormack
4.1 Introduction 67
4.2 Energy-Based Adaptive Agent Behaviors 68
4.3 Application of Energy Formalism to Multiagent Teams 73
4.4 Validation Experiments 80
4.5 Conclusions 84
References 84
Further Reading 85

5. Policy Issues Regarding Implementations of Cyber Attack:

Resilience Solutions for Cyber Physical Systems 87
Barry M. Horowitz
5.1 Introduction: Context 87
5.2 The Need to Address Cybersecurity for Physical Systems 89
5.3 Cybersecurity Role and Certification of the Operators of Physical Systems 95
5.4 Data Curation 96
5.5 Market Incentives 97
5.6 Conclusions and Recommendations 98
Acknowledgments 99
References 99
Further Reading 100

6. Trust and Human-Machine Teaming: A Qualitative Study 101

Joseph B. Lyons, Kevin T. Wynne, Sean Mahoney, Mark A. Roebke
6.1 Background 101
6.2 Method 106
6.3 Results 109
6.4 Discussion 111
6.5 Conclusion 114
References 115
Further Reading 116
 Contents vii

7. The Web of Smart Entities—Aspects of a Theory of the Next

Generation of the Internet of Things 117
Michael Wollowski, John McDonald

7.1 Introduction 117

7.2 Smart Things 119
7.3 A Vision of the Next Generation of the IoT 120
7.4 The Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Web of Smart Entities 124
7.5 Towards a Theory of the Web of Smart Entities 126
7.6 Interacting With Automation 131
7.7 Depth of WSE 134
7.8 Conclusions 135
Acknowledgments 136
References 136

8. Raising Them Right: AI and the Internet of Big Things 139

Alec Shuldiner

8.1 Introduction 139

8.2 “Things Are About to Get Weird” 139
8.3 Raise Them Right 140
8.4 Learning to Live With It 143

9. The Value of Information and the Internet of Things 145

Ira S. Moskowitz, Stephen Russell, Niranjan Suri
9.1 Introduction 145
9.2 The Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence 147
9.3 Reworking Howard’s Initial Example 150
9.4 Value Discussion 154
9.5 Clairvoyance About C 158
9.6 Clairvoyance About L 160
9.7 Clairvoyance About C and L 162
9.8 Discussion 163
9.9 Conclusion 166
Acknowledgments 167
References 167
viii Contents

10. Would IOET Make Economics More Neoclassical or More

Behavioral? Richard Thaler’s Prediction, a Revisit 171
Shu-Heng Chen

10.1 Motivation and Introduction 171

10.2 Walrasian Auctioneer and Unmanned Markets 173
10.3 Homo Economicus vs. Homo Sapiens 175
10.4 Concluding Remarks 182
Acknowledgments 183
References 184

11. Accessing Validity of Argumentation of Agents of the Internet

of Everything 187
Boris Galitsky, Anna Parnis
11.1 Introduction 187
11.2 Representing Argumentative Discourse 190
11.3 Detecting Invalid Argumentation Patterns 194
11.4 Recognizing Communicative Discourse Trees for Argumentation 202
11.5 Assessing Validity of Extracted Argument Patterns Via Dialectical Analysis 204
11.6 Intense Arguments Dataset 209
11.7 Evaluation of Detection and Validation of Arguments 209
11.8 Conclusions 212
References 213
Further Reading 216

12. Distributed Autonomous Energy Organizations: Next-Generation

Blockchain Applications for Energy Infrastructure 217
Michael Mylrea
12.1 Introduction to Distributed Autonomous Energy Organizations 217
12.2 Distributed Energy Supply Chain 219
12.3 AI—Blockchain to Secure Your Energy Supply Chain 222
12.4 Potential Blockchain Business and Implementation Challenges 222
12.5 Roadmap for When to Use Blockchain in the Energy Sector 225
12.6 The Evolution of Public Key Infrastructure Encryption 228
12.7 Why Blockchain, Why DAEO 231
12.8 Overview of the AI-Enabled Blockchain 233
12.9 Blockchain and AI Security Opportunity 233
12.10 Conclusion and Future Research 236
References 238
Further Reading 239
 Contents ix

13. Compositional Models for Complex Systems 241

Spencer Breiner, Ram D. Sriram, Eswaran Subrahmanian
13.1 Introduction 241
13.2 Characteristics of Complex Systems 244
13.3 System Design Is a Recursive Process 246
13.4 Inductive Datatypes and Algebraic Structures 251
13.5 Coalgebra and Infinite Datatypes 256
13.6 Operads as Compositional Architectures 258
13.7 Architectures for Learning 263
13.8 Conclusion 266
Disclaimer 269
References 269

14. Meta-Agents: Using Multi-Agent Networks to Manage Dynamic

Changes in the Internet of Things 271
Hesham Fouad, Ira S. Moskowitz

14.1 Introduction 271

14.2 Managing Complexity 272
14.3 Sentry Agents 273
14.4 An Illustrative Example 275
14.5 Reasoning 278
14.6 Challenges and Conclusion 279
Acknowledgments 280
References 280

Index 283
This page intentionally left blank
CONTRIBUTORS

Spencer Breiner
Information Technology Lab, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
MD, United States
Shu-Heng Chen
AI-ECON Research Center, Department of Economics, National Chengchi University,
Taipei, Taiwan
Hesham Fouad
Information Technology Division, Information Management & Decision Architectures
Branch, CODE 5580, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, United States
Adam Fouse
Aptima Inc., Woburn, MA, United States
Boris Galitsky
Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA, United States
Barry M. Horowitz
Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA,
United States
Brian Jalaian
Battlefield Information Processing Branch, US Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, MD,
United States
Alexander Kott
U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, MD, United States
W.F. Lawless
Departments of Math & Psychology, Paine College, Augusta, GA, United States
Georgiy Levchuk
Aptima Inc., Woburn, MA, United States
Joseph B. Lyons
Air Force Research Laboratory, Dayton, OH, United States
Sean Mahoney
Air Force Research Laboratory, Dayton, OH, United States
Robert McCormack
Aptima Inc., Woburn, MA, United States
John McDonald
ClearObject, Fishers, IN, United States
Ranjeev Mittu
Information Technology Division, Information Management & Decision Architectures
Branch, CODE 5580, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, United States

xi
xii Contributors

Ira S. Moskowitz
Information Technology Division, Information Management & Decision Architectures
Branch, CODE 5580, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, United States
Michael Mylrea
Cyber Security & Energy Technology, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland,
WA, United States
Anna Parnis
Department of Biology, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
Krishna Pattipati
Aptima Inc., Woburn, MA, United States
Mark A. Roebke
Air Force Institute of Technology, Dayton, OH, United States
Stephen Russell
Battlefield Information Processing Branch, US Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, MD,
United States
Daniel Serfaty
Aptima Inc., Woburn, MA, United States
Alec Shuldiner
Autodesk, Inc, San Francisco, CA, United States
Donald A. Sofge
Distributed Autonomous Systems Group, Code 5514, Navy Center for Applied Research in
Artificial Intelligence, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, United States
Ram D. Sriram
Information Technology Lab, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
MD, United States
Ethan Stump
U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, MD, United States
Eswaran Subrahmanian
Information Technology Lab, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
MD; Institute for Complex Engineered Systems, Carnegie Mellon University, Engineering
and Public Policy, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
Niranjan Suri
Battlefield Information Processing Branch, US Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, MD,
United States
Michael Wollowski
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, IN, United States
Kevin T. Wynne
University of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, United States
CHAPTER 1

Introduction
W.F. Lawless*, Ranjeev Mittu†, Donald A. Sofge‡, Ira S. Moskowitz†,
Stephen Russell§
*
Departments of Math & Psychology, Paine College, Augusta, GA, United States
†
Information Management & Decision Architectures Branch (CODE 5580), Information Technology
Division, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, United States
‡
Distributed Autonomous Systems Group, Code 5514, Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial
Intelligence, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, United States
§
Battlefield Information Processing Branch, Computational Information Sciences Directorate, Army Research
Laboratory, Adelphi, MD, United States

1.1 INTRODUCTION: IOE: IOT, IOBT,

AND IOIT—BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The Internet of Everything (IoE) generalizes machine-to-machine (M2M)
communications for the Internet of Things (IoT) to form an even more
complex system that also encompasses people, robots, and machines. From
Chambers (2014), IoE connects:
people, data, process and things. It is revolutionizing the way we do business, trans-
forming communication, job creation, education and healthcare across the globe.
… by 2020, more than 5 billion people will be connected, not to mention 50 billion
things. … [With IoE] [p]eople get better access to education, healthcare and other
opportunities to improve their lives and have better experiences. Governments can
improve how they serve their citizens and businesses can use the information they
get from all these new connections to make better decisions, be more productive
and innovate faster.

From a recent view of IoE, IoT is “all about connecting objects to the net-
work and enabling them to collect and share data” (Munro, 2017). With the
approach of IoT in everyday life (Gasior & Yang, 2013), on battlefields—
Internet of Battlefield Things (IoBT), in the medical arena—Internet of
Medical Things (IoMT), distributed with sensory networks and cyber-
physical systems, and even with device-level intelligence—Internet of
Intelligent Things (IoIT) comes a number of issues identified by Moskowitz
(2017), which are the explosion of data (e.g., cross-compatible systems;
storage locations); security challenges (e.g., adversarial resilience, data exfil-
tration, covert channels; enterprise protection; privacy); and self-* and auto-
nomic behaviors, and the risks to users, teams, enterprises, and institutions.

Artificial Intelligence for the Internet of Everything Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817636-8.00001-6 All rights reserved. 1
2 Artificial Intelligence for the Internet of Everything

As presently conceived, “Humans will often be the integral parts of the IoT
system” (Stankovic, 2014, p. 4). For IoE, IoT, IoBT, IoMT, IoIT, and so
on, and so on, will manifest as heterogeneous and potentially self-organizing
complex-systems that define human processes, requiring interoperability,
just-in-time (JIT) human interactions, and the orchestration of local-
adaptation functionalities as these “things” attempt to achieve human objec-
tives and goals (Suri et al., 2016). IoE is already impacting industry, too: the
Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT).2
Presently, there are numerous practical considerations: whatever the sys-
tems used for the benefits afforded, each one must be robust to interruption
and failure, and resilient to every possible perturbation from wear and tear in
daily use. For system-wide failures, a system must have manual control
backups; user-friendly methods for joining and leaving networks; autono-
mous updates and backups; and autonomous hardware updates (e.g., the list
is similar to re-ordering inventory or goods automatically after a sale event or
in anticipation of scheduled events by a large retailer like Amazon, Wal-
Mart, or Target). A system must also provide forensic evidence in the event
of mishaps, not only with onboard backups, but also with automatic backups
to the cloud.
For new and future systems, there are several other questions that must be
addressed: Will systems communicate with each other or be independent
actors? Will humans always need to be in the loop? Will systems commu-
nicate only with human users, or also with robot and machine users?
For future systems, we are also interested in what may happen when
these “things” begin to “think.” Foreseeing something like the arrival of
the IoE, Gershenfeld (1999, pp. 8, 10), the former Director of the MIT
Media Lab,3 predicted that when a digital system:
has an identity, knowing something about our environment, and being able to
communicate … [we will need] components that can work together and change
… [to produce a] digital evolution so that the digital world merges with the phys-
ical world.

Gershenfeld helped us to link our AAAI symposium with our past symposia
on using artificial intelligence (AI) to reduce human errors.4 Intelligence is

2
For example, from General Electric on IIot, see https://www.ge.com/digital/blog/everything-you-
need-know-about-industrial-internet-things.
3
Gershenfeld is presently the Director, The Center for Bits and Atoms, MIT, Cambridge, MA;
gersh@cba.mit.edu.
4
For example, see our AAAI Symposium at Stanford in 2016 at http://www.aaai.org/Library/
Symposia/Spring/ss16-01.php.
 Introduction 3

perceived to be a critical factor in overcoming barriers in order to direct

maximum entropy production (MEP) to solve difficult problems
(Martyushev, 2013; Wissner-Gross & Freer, 2013). But intelligence may
also save lives. For example, a fighter plane can already take control and save
itself if its fighter pilot loses consciousness during a high-g maneuver. We
had proposed in 2016 that with existing technology, the passengers aboard
Germanwings Flight 9525 might have been saved had the airliner safely
secured itself by isolating the copilot who committed murder and suicide
to kill all aboard (Lawless, 2016). Similarly, when the Amtrak train derailed
in 2015 from the loss of awareness of its head engineer loss of life could have
been avoided had the train taken control until it or its central authority could
affect a safe termination (NTSB, 2016); similarly for the memory lapse
experienced by the well-trained and experienced engineer who simply failed
to heed the speed limit approaching a curve, killing three and injuring
multiple others (NTSB, 2018).
Gershenfeld’s evolution may arrive when intelligent “things” and
humans team together as part of a “collective intelligence” to solve prob-
lems and to save lives (Goldberg, 2017). But autonomy is turning out to be
more difficult than expected based strictly on engineering principles alone
(e.g., for driverless cars, see Niedermeyer, 2018). Researchers involved
with the IoE must not only advance the present state of these “things,”
but also address how they think that the science of “collective intelligence”
may afford the next evolution of society.

1.2 INTRODUCTIONS TO THE TECHNICAL CHAPTERS

The first research chapter, Chapter 2, titled “Uncertainty Quantification in
the Internet of Battlefield Things,” was authored by Brian Jalaian5 and
Stephen Russell. The authors are scientists at the U.S. Army Research Lab-
oratory in Adelphi, MD. Their focus in this chapter is on mixed technolo-
gies that must be fully integrated for maximum military effect in the field
(i.e., technologies built by different businesses at different times for different
purposes must somehow become integrated to work seamlessly; e.g.,
recently the Army was successful in integrating multiple technologies for
National Defense (Freedberg, 2018)). They begin their chapter by review-
ing a wide range of advances in recent technologies for IoT, not only for
5
Corresponding author: brian.a.jalaian.civ@mail.mil.
 Introduction 15

CyberInfrastructure Group at NIST and is with the Carnegie Mellon Uni-

versity’s Engineering and Public Policy, Institute for Complex Engineered
Systems in Pittsburgh, PA. In this chapter the authors propose an argument
for the use of representations from category theory to support better models
for complex systems (to better understand the stability of mathematical
structures and as an alternative to set theory, “category” theory was devised
to consist of labeled directed subgraphs with arrows that associate, and
objects with unique arrows, such as A ! B ! C ! A); the authors provide
examples of what an application of category theory might look like. Their
approach is based on the well-known observation that the design of complex
systems is fundamentally recursive, formalized in computer science with
structures known as algebras, coalgebras, and operads,17 the mathematical
structures that happen to be closely linked to labeled tree representations.
Next, the authors construct two small examples from computer science
to illustrate the functional aspects and use of the categorical approach. Their
first example, a common HVAC heating and air conditioning system,
defines a logical semantics of contracts that they use to organize the different
requirements that may occur at the different scales in hierarchical systems.
The second example that the authors offer concerns the integration of AI
models into a preexisting human-driven process. The approach by the
authors is used by them to characterize the complexity of systems (e.g., het-
erogeneity, open interactions, multiple perspectives of jointly cognitive
agents). The authors conclude that category theory is hampered by the belief
held by others that it is too abstract and cumbersome, an obstacle that the
authors are striving to overcome by demonstrating its utility with the exam-
ples they provide and by concluding that the theory is well-linked across
many domains (e.g., physics, computer science, data science, etc.).
Chapter 14, titled “Meta-agents: Using Multiagent Networks to Manage
Dynamic Changes in the Internet of Things,” was written by Hesham
Fouad18 and Ira S. Moskowitz of the Information Management and Deci-
sions Architecture Branch, Code 5580, at the Naval Research Laboratory
in Washington, DC. Fouad is a computer scientist with a strong background
in both academic research and commercial software development (e.g.,
SoundScape3D and VibeStation, used in the VR Laboratory at NRL);

17
To create reusable proofs, algebras provide a uniform language that generalize, for example, groups,
rings, lattices and monoids; coalgebras are duals used to represent classes and objects; and operads
model properties of mathematical structures of compositional architectures such as commutativity and
anti-commutativity (e.g., Jacobs, 2016).
18
Corresponding author: hesham.fouad@nrl.navy.mil.
16 Artificial Intelligence for the Internet of Everything

Moskowitz is a mathematician at NRL (who holds three patents). The

authors explore the idea of creating and deploying online agents as their
way of crafting emergent configurations (EC). As part of this structure, their
method entails the management of complexity through the use of dynam-
ically emergent meta-agents forming a holonic system. From their perspec-
tive, in the context of their research, these meta-agents are agents existing
inside of a software paradigm where they are able to reason and utilize their
reasoning to construct and deploy other agents with special purposes for
which they are able to form an EC. As the authors note, the kind of reason-
ing models that can support the idea of meta-agents in the context of an EC
have not been well explored, which they proceed to perform and report on
in their chapter. To realize an EC using meta-agents, the authors first discuss
the management of the complexity that a problem creates, then they develop
a multiagent framework capable of supporting meta-agents, and, finally, the
authors explore and review known reasoning models. They give an example
with a service-oriented architecture (SOA), they test it with an automated
evaluation process, and they introduce holon agents. Holonic agents are
intelligent agents able to work independently and as part of a hierarchy.
They are simultaneously complete in and of themselves and are able to inter-
act independently with the environment, yet they can also be a part of a hier-
archy. A holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part. The
idea of a holon began with Koestler (1967/1990), who introduced it as part
of a duality between emotion and reason. As the authors note, the number of
IoT devices is expected to exceed a billion, making computations and
searches among the devices complex and difficult. With their approach they
hope to simplify the process. The authors recommend the development of
standards in the searches to be made for the discovery of IoT devices.

REFERENCES
Babcock, C. (2006). What’s the greatest software ever written? Witness the definitive,
irrefutable, immutable ranking of the most brilliant software programs ever hacked. Infor-
mationWeek. August 11. From https://www.informationweek.com/whats-the-greatest-
software-ever-written/d/d-id/1046033.
Chambers, J. (2014). Are you ready for the Internet of everything? World Economic Forum.
January 15. From https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/01/are-you-ready-for-
the-internet-of-everything/.
Datta, T., Aphorpe, N., & Feamster, N. (2018). A developer-friendly library for smart home
IoT privacy-preserving traffic obfuscation. arXiv. August 22. From https://arxiv.org/
pdf/1808.07432.pdf.
Freedberg, S. J., Jr. (2018). New tests prove IBCS missile defense network does work: Nor-
throp. “There’s a real capability that can be deployed as soon as the government says it
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
divine prerogatives of Jesus. But John deals very little in those
pointed and apt references to the testimony of the Hebrew
scriptures, which so distinguish the writings of Matthew; he evidently
apprehends that those to whom he writes, will be less affected by
appeals of that kind, than by proofs drawn from his actions and
discourses, and by the testimony of the great, the good, and the
inspired, among those who saw and heard him. The work of Matthew
was, on the other hand, plainly designed to bring to the faith of
Jesus, those who were already fully and correctly instructed in all
that related to the divinely exalted character of the Messiah, and only
needed proof that the person proposed to them as the Redeemer
thus foretold, was in all particulars such as the unerring word of
ancient prophecy required. Besides this object of converting the
unbelieving Jews, its tendency was also manifestly to strengthen and
preserve those who were already professors of the faith of Jesus;
and such, through all ages, has been its mighty scope, enlightening
the nations with the clearest historical testimony ever borne to the
whole life and actions of Jesus Christ, and rejoicing the millions of
the faithful with the plainest record of the events that secured their
salvation.

Beyond the history of this gospel, the Fathers have hardly given
the least account, either fanciful or real, of the succeeding life of
Matthew. A fragment of tradition, of no very ancient date, specifies
that he wrote his gospel when he was about to leave Palestine to go
to other lands; but neither the region nor the period is mentioned.
Probably, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, he followed the
eastward course of the Jewish Christians; but beyond this, even
conjecture is lost. But where all historical grounds fail, monkish
invention comes in with its tedious details of fabulous nonsense; and
in this case, as in others already alluded to, the writings of the monks
of the fourteenth century, produce long accounts of Matthew’s labors
in Ethiopia, where he is carried through a long series of fabled
miracles, to the usual crowning glory of martyrdom.
 Ethiopia.――The earliest testimony on this point by any ecclesiastical history, is that of
Socrates, (A. D. 425,) a Greek writer, who says only, that “when the apostles divided the
heathen world, by lot, among themselves,――to Matthew was allotted Ethiopia.” This is
commonly supposed to mean Nubia, or the country directly south of Egypt. The other
Fathers of the fifth and following centuries, generally assign him the same country; but it is
quite uncertain what region is designated by this name. Ethiopia was a name applied by the
Greeks to such a variety of regions, that it is quite in vain to define the particular one meant,
without more information about the locality.

But no such idle inventions can add anything to the interest which
this apostolic writer has secured for himself by his noble Christian
record. Not even an authentic history of miracles and martyrdom,
could increase his enduring greatness. The tax-gatherer of Galilee
has left a monument, on which cluster the combined honors of a
literary and a holy fame,――a monument which insures him a wider,
more lasting, and far higher glory, than the noblest ♦achievements of
the Grecian or the Latin writers, in his or any age could acquire for
them. Not Herodotus nor Livy,――not Demosthenes nor
Cicero,――not Homer nor Virgil,――can find a reader to whom the
despised Matthew’s simple work is not familiar; nor did the highest
hope or the proudest conception of the brilliant Horace, when
exulting in the extent and durability of his fame, equal the boundless
and eternal range of Matthew’s honors. What would Horace have
said, if he had been told that among the most despised of these
superstitious and barbarian Jews, whom his own writings show to
have been proverbially scorned, would arise one, within thirty or forty
years, who, degraded by his avocation, even below his own
countrymen’s standard of respectability, would, by a simple record in
humble prose, in an uncultivated and soon-forgotten dialect,
“complete a monument more enduring than brass,――more lofty
than the pyramids,――outlasting all the storms of revolution and of
disaster,――all the course of ages and the flight of time?” Yet such
was the result of the unpretending effort of Matthew; and it is not the
least among the miracles of the religion whose foundation he
commemorated and secured, that such a wonder in fame should
have been achieved by it.
♦ “achievments” replaced with “achievements”
 THOMAS, DIDYMUS.
The second name of this apostle is only the Greek translation of
the former, which is the Syriac and Hebrew word for a “twin-brother,”
from which, therefore, one important circumstance may be safely
inferred about the birth of Thomas, though unfortunately, beyond
this, antiquity bears no record whatever of his circumstances
previous to his admission into the apostolic fraternity.

Nor is the authentic history of the apostles, much more

satisfactory in respect to subsequent parts of Thomas’s history. A
very few brief but striking incidents, in which he was particularly
engaged, are specified by John alone, who seems to have been
disposed to supply, by his gospel, some characteristic account of
several of the apostles, who had been noticed only by name, in the
writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Those in particular who receive
this peculiar notice from him, are Andrew, Philip, Nathanael,
Thomas, and John himself,――of all whom, as well as of Peter, are
thus learned some interesting matters, which, though apparently so
trivial, do much towards giving a distinct impression of some of the
leading traits in their characters. Among those facts thus preserved
respecting Thomas, however, there is not one which gives any
account of his parentage, rank in life, or previous occupation; nor do
any other authentic sources bring any more facts to view on these
points. The only conclusion presented even by conjecture, about his
early history, is, that he was a publican, like Matthew,――a notion
which is found in some of the Fathers,――grounded, no doubt,
altogether on the circumstance, that in all the gospel lists, he is
paired with Matthew, as though there were some close connection
between them. This is only a conjecture, and one with even a more
insignificant basis than most trifling speculations of this sort, and
therefore deserving no regard whatever. Of the three incidents
commemorated by John, two at least, are such as to present
Thomas in a light by no means advantageous to his character as a
ready and zealous believer in Jesus; but on both these occasions he
is represented as expressing opinions which prove him to have been
very slow, not only in believing, but in comprehending spiritual truths.
The first incident is that mentioned by John in his account of the
death of Lazarus, where he describes the effect produced on the
disciples by the news of the decease of their friend, and by the
declaration made at the same time by Jesus, of his intention to go
into Judea again, in spite of all the mortal dangers to which he was
there exposed by the hatred of the Jews, who, enraged at his open
declarations of his divine character and origin, were determined to
punish with death, one who advanced claims which they pronounced
absolutely blasphemous. This mortal hatred they had so openly
expressed, that Jesus himself had thought it best to retire awhile
from that region, and to avoid exposing himself to the fatal effects of
such malice, until the other great duties of his earthly mission had
been executed, so as to enable him, at last, to proceed to the bloody
fulfilment of his mighty task, with the assurance that he had finished
the work which his Father gave him to do.

But in spite of the pressing remonstrances of his disciples, Jesus

expressed his firm resolution to go, in the face of all mortal dangers,
into Judea, there to complete the divine work which he had only
begun. Thomas, finding his Master determined to rush into the
danger, which, by once retreating from it for a time, he had
acknowledged to be imminent, resolved not to let him go on, alone;
and turning to his fellow-disciples, said, “Let us also go, that we may
die with him.” The proposal, thus decidedly made, shows a noble
resolution in Thomas, to share all the fortunes of him to whom he
had joined himself, and presents his character in a far more
favorable light than the other passages in which his conduct is
commemorated. While the rest were fearfully expostulating on the
peril of the journey, he boldly proposed to his companions to follow
unhesitatingly the footsteps of their Master, whithersoever he might
go,――thus evincing a spirit of far more exalted devotion to the
cause.

The view here taken differs from the common interpretation of the passage, but it is the
view which has seemed best supported by the whole tenor of the context, as may be
decided by a reference to the passage in its place, (John xi. 16.) The evidence on both
views can not be better presented than in Bloomfield’s note on this passage, which is here
extracted entire.

“Here again the commentators differ in opinion. Some, as Grotius, Poole, Hammond,
Whitby, and others, apply the αὐτου to Lazarus, and take it as equivalent to ‘let us go and
die together with him.’ But it is objected by Maldonati and Lampe, that Lazarus was already
dead; and die like him they could not, because a violent death was the one in Thomas’s
contemplation. But these arguments seem inconclusive. It may with more justice be
objected that the sense seems scarcely natural. I prefer, with many ancient and modern
interpreters, to refer the αὐτου to Jesus, ‘let us go and die with him.’ Maldonati and
Doddridge regard the words as indicative of the most affectionate attachment to our Lord’s
person. But this is going into the other extreme. It seems prudent to hold a middle course,
with Calvin, Tarnovius, Lyser, Bucer, Lampe, and (as it should appear) Tittman. Thomas
could not dismiss the idea of the imminent danger to which both Jesus and they would be
exposed, by going into Judea; and, with characteristic bluntness, and some portion of ill
humor, (though with substantial attachment to his Master’s person,) he exclaims: ‘Since our
Master will expose himself to such imminent, and, as it seems, unnecessary danger, let us
accompany him, if it be only to share his fate.’ Thus there is no occasion, with Markland and
Forster, apud Bowyer, to read the words interrogatively.” (Bloomfield’s Annotations, vol. III.
p. 426, 427.)

In John’s minute account of the parting discourses of Christ at the

Last Supper, it is mentioned, that Jesus after speaking of his
departure, as very near, in order to comfort his disciples, told them,
he was going “to prepare a place for them, in his Father’s house,
where were many mansions.” Assuring them of his speedy return to
bring them to these mansions of rest, he said to them, “Whither I go
ye know, and the way ye know.” But so lost, for the time, were all
these words of instruction and counsel, that not one of his followers
seems to have rightly apprehended the force of this remark; and
Thomas was probably only expressing the general doubt, when he
replied to Jesus, in much perplexity at the language, “Lord, we know
not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?” Jesus
replied, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the
Father but by me.” But equally vain was this new illustration of the
truth. The remark which Philip next made, begging that they might
have their curiosity gratified by a sight of the Father, shows how idly
they were all still dreaming of a worldly, tangible and visible kingdom,
and how uniformly they perverted all the plain declarations of Jesus,
to a correspondence with their own pre-conceived, deep-rooted
notions. Nor was this miserable error removed, till the descent of that
Spirit of Truth, which their long-suffering and ever watchful Lord
invoked, to teach their still darkened souls the things which they
would not now see, and to bring to their remembrance all which they
now so little heeded.

The remaining incident respecting this apostle, which is recorded

by John, further illustrates the state of mind in which each new
revelation of the divine power and character of Jesus, found his
disciples. None of them expected his resurrection;――none would
really believe it, until they had seen him with their own eyes. Thomas
therefore showed no remarkable skepticism, when, hearing from the
others, that one evening, when he was not present, Jesus had
actually appeared alive among them, he declared his absolute
unbelief,――protesting, that far from suffering himself to be as lightly
deceived as they had been, he would give no credit to any evidence
but that of the most unquestionable character,――that of seeing and
touching those bloody marks which would characterize, beyond all
possibility of mistake, the crucified body of Jesus. “Except I shall see
in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of
the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” After
eight days, the disciples were again assembled, and on this
occasion Thomas was with them. While they were sitting, as usual,
with doors closed for fear of the Jews, Jesus again, in the same
sudden and mysterious manner as before, appeared all at once in
the midst, with his solemn salutation, “Peace be with you!” Turning at
once to the unbelieving disciple, whose amazed eyes now for the
first time fell on the body of his risen Lord, he said to him, “Thomas!
Put thy finger here, and see my hands; and put thy hand here, and
thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.” The
stubbornly skeptical disciple was melted at the sight of these
mournful tokens of his Redeemer’s dying agonies, and in a burst of
new exalted devotion, he exclaimed, “My Lord! and my God!” The
pierced hands and side showed beyond all question the body of his
“Lord;” and the spirit that could, of itself, from such a death, return to
perfect life, could be nothing else than “God.” The reply of Jesus to
this expression of faith and devotion, contained a deep reproach to
this slow-believing disciple, who would take no evidence whatever of
the accomplishment of his Master’s dying words, except the sight of
every tangible thing that could identify his person. “Thomas! because
thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they, who though
not seeing, yet believe.”

“Put thy finger here.”――This phrase seems to express the graphic force of the original,
much more justly than the common translation. The adverb of place, ὧδε, gives the idea of
the very place where the wounds had been made, and brings to the reader’s mind the
attitude and gesture of Jesus, with great distinctness. The adverb “here,” refers to the print
of the nails; and Jesus holds out his hand to Thomas, as he says these words, telling him to
put his finger into the wound.

Not seeing, yet believe.――This is the form of expression best justified by the
indefiniteness of the Greek aorists, whose very name implies this unlimitedness in respect
to time. The limitation to the past, implied in the common translation, is by no means
required by the original; but it is left so vague, that the action may be referred to the present
and the future also.

Beyond this, the writings of the New Testament give not the least
account of Thomas; and his subsequent history can only be
uncertainly traced in the dim and dark stories of tradition, or in the
contradictory records of the Fathers. Different accounts state that he
preached the gospel in
Parthia,――Media,――Persia,――Ethiopia,――and at last, India. A
great range of territories is thus spread out before the investigator,
but the traces of the apostle’s course and labors are both few and
doubtful. Those of the Fathers who mention his journeys into these
countries, give no particulars whatever of his labors; and all that is
now believed respecting these things, is derived from other, and
perhaps still more uncertain sources.

India is constantly asserted by the Fathers, from the beginning of

the third century, to have very early received the gospel, and this
apostle is named as the person through whom this evangelization
was effected; but this evidence alone would be entitled to very little
consideration, except from the circumstance, that from an early
period, to this day, there has existed in India, a large body of
Christians, who give themselves the name of “St. Thomas’s
Christians,” of whose antiquity proofs are found in the testimony,
both of very ancient and very modern travelers. They still retain
many traditions of the person whom they claim as their
founder,――of his place of landing,――the towns he visited,――the
churches he planted,――his places of residence and his retreats for
private devotion,――the very spot of his martyrdom, and his grave.
A tradition, however, floating down unwritten for fifteen centuries, can
not be received as very good evidence; and the more minute such
stories are in particulars, the more suspicious they are in their
character for truth. But in respect to the substance of this, it may well
be said, that it is by no means improbable, and is in the highest
degree consistent with the views, already taken, in former parts of
this work, of the eastward course of the apostles after the destruction
of Jerusalem. The great body of them, taking refuge at Babylon,
within the limits of the great Parthian empire, the more adventurous
might follow the commercial routes still farther eastward, to the mild
and generally peaceful nations of distant India, whose character for
civilization and partial refinement was such as to present many
facilities for the introduction and wide diffusion of the gospel among
them. These views, in connection with the great amount of
respectable evidence from various other sources, make the whole
outline of the story of Thomas’s labors in India very possible, and
even highly probable.

The earliest evidence among the Fathers that has ever been quoted on this point, is that
of Pantaenus, of Alexandria, whose visit to what was then called India, has been mentioned
above; (page 363;) but as has there been observed, the investigations of Michaelis and
others, have made it probable that Arabia-Felix was the country there intended by that
name. The first distinct mention made of any eastward movement of Thomas, that can be
found, is by Origen, who is quoted by Eusebius, (Church History, III. 1,) as testifying, that
when the apostles separated to go into all the world, and preach the gospel, Parthia was
assigned to Thomas; and Origen is represented as appealing to the common tradition, for
the proof of this particular fact. Jerome speaks of Thomas, as preaching the gospel in
Media and Persia. In another passage he specifies India, as his field; and in this he is
followed by most of the later writers,――Ambrose, Nicephorus, Baronius, Natalis, &c.
Chrysostom (Oration on the 12 Apostles) says that Thomas preached the gospel in
Ethiopia. As the geography of all these good Fathers seems to have been somewhat
confused, all these accounts may be considered very consistent with each other. Media and
Persia were both in the Parthian Empire; and all very distant countries, east and south,
were, by the Greeks, vaguely denominated India and Ethiopia; just ♦ as all the northern
unknown regions were generally called Scythia.

♦ removed duplicate “as”

Natalis Alexander (Church History, IV. p. 32,) sums up all these accounts by saying, that
Thomas preached the gospel to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Brachmans, Indians, and
the other neighboring nations, subject to the empire of the Parthians. He quotes as his
authorities, besides the above-mentioned Fathers, Sophronius, (A. D. 390,) Gregory
Nazianzen, (A. D. 370,) Ambrose, (370,) Gaudentius, (A. D. 387.) The author of the
imperfect work on Matthew, (A. D. 560,) says, that Thomas found in his travels, the three
Magi, who adored the infant Jesus, and having baptized them, associated them with him, in
his apostolic labors. Theodoret, (A. D. 423,) Gaudentius, Asterius, (A. D. 320,) and others,
declare Thomas to have died by martyrdom. Sophronius (390,) testifies that Thomas died at
Calamina, in India. This Calamina is now called Malipur, and in commemoration of a
tradition, preserved, as we are told, on the spot, to this effect, the Portuguese, when they
set up their dominion in India, gave it the name of the city of St. Thomas. The story reported
by the Portuguese travelers and historians is, that there was a tradition current among the
people of the place, that Thomas was there martyred, by being thrust through with a lance.
(Natalis Alexander, Church History, vol. IV. pp. 32, 33.)

A new weight of testimony has been added to all this, by the statements of Dr. Claudius
Buchanan, who, in modern times, has traced out all these traditions on the spot referred to,
and has given a very full account of the “Christians of St. Thomas,” in his “Christian
researches in India.”

On this evidence, may be founded a rational belief, though not an

absolute certainty, that Thomas actually did preach the gospel in
distant eastern countries, and there met with such success as to
leave the lasting tokens of his labors, to preserve through a course
of ages, in united glory, his own name and that of his Master. In
obedience to His last earthly command, he went to teach “nations
unknown to Caesar,” proclaiming to them the message of divine
love,――solitary, and unsupported, save by the presence of Him,
who had promised to “be with him always, even to the end of the
world.”
 JAMES, THE LITTLE;
THE SON OF ALPHEUS.

his name.

It will be observed, no doubt, by all readers, that the most

important inquiry suggested in the outset of the most of these
apostolic biographies, is about the name and personal identification
of the individual subject of each life. This difficulty is connected with
peculiarities of those ancient times and half-refined nations, that may
not, perhaps, be very readily appreciated by those who have been
accustomed only to the definite nomenclature of families and
individuals, which is universally adopted among civilized nations at
the present day. With all the refined nations of European race, the
last part of a person’s name marks his family, and is supposed to
have been borne by his father, and by his ancestors, from the time
when family names were first adopted. The former part of his name,
with equal definiteness, marks the individual; and generally remains
fixed from the time when he first received his name. Whenever any
change takes place in any part of his appellation, it is generally done
in such a formal and permanent mode, as never to make any
occasion for confusion in respect to the individual, among those
concerned with him. But no such decisive limitation of names to
persons, prevailed among even the most refined nations of the
apostolic age. The name given to a child at birth, indeed, was very
uniformly retained through life; but as to the other parts of his
appellation, it was taken, according to circumstances, chance or
caprice, from the common name of his father,――from some
personal peculiarity,――from his business,――from his general
character,――or from some particular incident in his life. The name
thus acquired, to distinguish him ♦ from others bearing his former
name, was used either in connection with that, or without; and
sometimes two or more such distinctive appellations belonged to the
same man, all or any of which were used together with the former, or
separate from it, without any definite rule of application. To those
acquainted with the individual so variously named, and
contemporary with him, no confusion was made by this multiplicity of
words; and when anything was recorded respecting him, it was done
with the perfect assurance, that all who then knew him, would find no
difficulty in respect to his personal identity, however he might he
mentioned. But in later ages, when the personal knowledge of all
these individual distinctions has been entirely lost, great difficulties
necessarily arise on these points,――difficulties which, after tasking
historical and philological criticism to the highest efforts, in order to
settle the facts, are, for the most part, left in absolute uncertainty.
Thus, in respect to the twelve apostles, it will be noticed, that this
confusion of names throws great doubt over many important
questions. Among some of them, too, these difficulties are partly
owing to other causes. Their names were originally given to them, in
the peculiar language of Palestine; and in the extension of their
labors and fame, to people of different languages, of a very opposite
character, their names were forced to undergo new distortions, by
being variously translated, or changed in termination; and many of
the original Hebrew sounds, in consequence of being altogether
unpronounceable by Greeks and Romans, were variously
exchanged for softer and smoother ones, which, in their dissimilar
forms, would lose almost all perceptible traces of identity with each
other, or with the original word.

♦ replace word omitted from text “from”

These difficulties are in no case quite so prominent and serious as

in regard to the apostle who is the subject of this particular
biography. Bearing the same name with the elder son of Zebedee,
he was of course necessarily designated by some additional title, to
distinguish him from the other great apostle James. This title was not
always the same, nor was it uniform in its principle of selection. On
all the apostolic lists, he is designated by a reference to the name of
his father, as is the first James. As the person first mentioned by this
name is called James, the son of Zebedee, the second is called
James, the son of Alpheus; nor is there, in the enumeration of the
apostles by Matthew, Mark or Luke, any reference to another
distinctive appellation of this James. But in one passage of Mark’s
account of the crucifixion, it is mentioned, that among the women
present, was Mary the mother of James the Little, and of Joses. In
what sense this word little is applied,――whether of age, size, or
dignity,――it is utterly impossible to ascertain at this day; for the
original word is known to have been applied to persons, in every one
of these senses, even in the New Testament. But, however this may
be, a serious question arises, whether this James the Little was
actually the same person as the James, called, on the apostolic lists,
the son of Alpheus. In the corresponding passage in John’s gospel,
this same Mary is called Mary the wife of Clopas; and by Matthew
and Mark, the same James is mentioned as the brother of Joses,
Juda, and Simon. In the apostolic lists given by Luke, both in his
gospel, and in the Acts of the Apostles, Juda is also called “the
brother of James;” and in his brief general epistle, the same apostle
calls himself “the brother of James.” In the beginning of the epistle to
the Galatians, Paul, describing his own reception at Jerusalem, calls
him “James, the brother of our Lord;” and by Matthew and Mark, he,
with his brothers, Joses, Juda and Simon, is also called the brother
of Jesus. From all these seemingly opposite and irreconcilable
statements, arise three inquiries, which can, it is believed, be so
answered, as to attribute to the subject of this article every one of the
circumstances connected with James, in these different stories.

James, the Little.――This adjective is here applied to him in the positive degree,
because it is so in the original Greek, [Ιακωβος ὁ μικρος, Mark xv. 40,] and this expression
too, is in accordance with English forms of expression. The comparative form, “James, the
Less,” seems to have originated in the Latin Vulgate, “Jacobus Minor,” which may be well
enough in that language; but in English, there is no reason why the original word should not
be literally and faithfully expressed. The Greek original of Mark, calls him “James, the Little,”
which implies simply, that he was a little man; whether little in size, or age, or dignity, every
one is left to guess for himself;――but it is more accordant with usage, in respect to such
nicknames, in those times, to suppose that he was a short man, and was thus named to
distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, who was probably taller. The term thus applied by
Mark, would be understood by all to whom he wrote, and implied no disparagement to his
mental eminence. But the term applied, in the sense of a smaller dignity, is so slighting to
the character of James, who to the last day of his life, maintained, according to both
Christian and Jewish history, the most exalted fame for religion and intellectual
worth,――that it must have struck all who heard it thus used, as a term altogether unjust to
his true eminence. His weight of character in the councils of the apostles, soon after the
ascension, and the manner in which he is alluded to in the accounts of his death, make it
very improbable that he was younger than the other James.

First: Was James the son of Alpheus the same person as James
the son of Clopas? The main argument for the identification of these
names, rests upon the similarity of the consonants in the original
Hebrew word which represents them both, and which, according to
the fancy of a writer, might be represented in Greek, either by the
letters of Alpheus or of Clopas. This proof, of course, can be fully
appreciated only by those who are familiar with the power of the
letters of the oriental languages, and know the variety of modes in
which they are frequently given in the Greek, and other European
languages. The convertibility of certain harsh sounds of the dialects
of southwestern Asia, into either hard consonants, or smooth vowel
utterances, is sufficiently well-known to Biblical scholars, to make the
change here supposed appear perfectly probable and natural to
them. It will be observed by common readers, that all the consonants
in the two words are exactly the same, except that Clopas has a
hard C, or K, in the beginning, and that Alpheus has the letter P
aspirated by an H, following it. Now, both of these differences can,
by a reference to the original Hebrew word, be shown to be only the
results of the different modes of expressing the same Hebrew letters;
and the words thus expressed may, by the established rules of
etymology, be referred to the same oriental root. These two names,
then, Alpheus and Clopas, may be safely assigned to the same
person; and Mary the wife of Clopas and the mother of James the
Little, and of Joses, was, no doubt, the mother of him who is called
“James the son of Alpheus.”

Clopas and Alpheus.――It should be noticed, that in the common translation of the New
Testament, the former of these two words is very unjustifiably expressed by Cleophas,
whereas the original (John xix. 25,) is simply Κλωπας. (Clopas.) This is a totally different
name from Cleopas, (Luke xxiv. 18, Κλεοπας,) which is probably Greek in its origin, and
abridged from Cleopater, (Κλεοπατρος,) just as Antipas from Antipater, and many other
similar instances, in which the Hellenizing Jews abridged the terminations of Greek and
Roman words, to suit the genius of the Hebrew tongue. But Clopas, being very differently
spelt in the Greek, must be traced to another source; and the circumstances which connect
it with the name Alpheus, suggesting that, like that, it might have a Hebrew origin, directs
the inquirer to the original form of that word. The Hebrew ‫( חלפא‬hhalpha) may be taken as
the word from which both are derived; each being such an expression of the original, as the
different writers might choose for its fair representation. The first letter in the word, ‫ח‬,
(hhaith,) has in Hebrew two entirely distinct sounds; one a strong guttural H, and the other a
deeply aspirated KH. These are represented in Arabic by two different letters, but in
Hebrew, a single character is used to designate both; consequently the names which
contain this letter, may be represented in Greek and other languages, by two different
letters, according as they were pronounced; and where the original word which contained it,
was sounded differently, by different persons, under different circumstances, varying its
pronunciation with the times and the fashion, even in the same word, it would be differently
expressed in Greek. Any person familiar with the peculiar changes made in those Old
Testament names which are quoted in the New, will easily apprehend the possibility of such
a variation in this. Thus, in Stephen’s speech, (Acts vii.) Haran is called Charran; and other
changes of the same sort occur in the same chapter. The name Anna, (Luke ii. 36,) is the
same with Hannah, (1 Samuel i. 2,) which in the Hebrew has this same strongly aspirated
H, that begins the word in question,――and the same too, which in Acts vii. 2, 4, is changed
into the strong Greek Ch; while all its harshness is lost, and the whole aspiration removed,
in Anna. These instances, taken out of many similar ones, may justify to common readers,
the seemingly great change of letters in the beginning of Alpheus and Clopas. The other
changes of vowels are of no account, since in the oriental languages particularly, these are
not fixed parts of the word, but mere modes of uttering the consonants, and vary throughout
the verbs and nouns, in almost every inflexion these parts of speech undergo. These
therefore, are not considered radical or essential parts of the word, and are never taken into
consideration in tracing a word from one language to another,――the consonants being the
fixed parts on which etymology depends. The change also from the aspirate Ph, to the
smooth mute P, is also so very common in the oriental languages, and even in the Greek,
that it need not be regarded in identifying the word.

Taking into consideration then, the striking and perfect affinities of the two words, and
adding to these the great body of presumptive proofs, drawn from the other circumstances
that show or suggest the identity of persons,――and noticing moreover, the circumstance,
that while Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of Alpheus, they never speak of Clopas,――and
that John, who alone uses the name Clopas, never mentions Alpheus,――it seems very
reasonable to adopt the conclusion, that the last evangelist means the same person as the
former.

Second: Was James the son of Alpheus the same person as

“James, the brother of our Lord?” An affirmative answer to this
question seems to be required by the fact, that Mary the wife of
Clopas is named as the mother of James and Joses; and elsewhere,
James and Joses, and Juda and Simon, are called the brothers of
Jesus. It should be understood that the word “brother” is used in the
scriptures often, to imply a relationship much less close than that of
the children of the same father and mother. “Cousins” are called
“brothers” in more cases than one, and the oriental mode of
maintaining family relationship closely through several generations,
made it very common to consider those who were the children of
brothers, as being themselves brothers; and to those familiar with
this extension of the term, it would not necessarily imply anything
more. In the case alluded to, all those to whom the narratives and
other statements containing the expression, “James the brother of
our Lord,” were first addressed, being well acquainted with the
precise nature of this relationship, would find no difficulty whatever in
such a use of words. The nature of his relationship to Jesus seems
to have been that of cousin, whether by the father’s side or mother’s,
is very doubtful. By John indeed, Mary the wife of Clopas is called
the sister of the mother of Jesus; but it will seem reasonable enough
to suppose,――since two sisters, daughters of the same parents,
could hardly bear the same name,――that Mary the mother of
James, must have been only the sister-in-law of the mother of Jesus,
either the wife of her brother, or the sister of her husband; or, in
perfect conformity with this use of the term “sister,” she may have
been only a cousin or some such relation.

The third question which has been originated from these various
statements,――whether James, the brother of Jesus and the author
of the epistle, was an apostle,――must, of course, be answered in
the affirmative, if the two former points have been correctly settled.

All the opinions on these points are fully given and discussed by Michaelis, in his
Introduction to the epistle of James. He states five different suppositions which have been
advanced respecting the relationship borne to Jesus by those who are in the New
Testament called his brothers. 1. That they were the sons of Joseph, by a former wife.
2. That they were the sons of Joseph, by Mary the mother of Jesus. 3. That they were the
sons of Joseph by the widow of a brother, to whom he was obliged to raise up children
according to the laws of Moses. 4. That this deceased brother of Joseph, to whom the laws
required him to raise up issue, was Alpheus. 5. That they were brothers of Christ, not in the
strict sense of the word, but in a more lax sense, namely, in that of cousin, or relation in
general, agreeably to the usage of this word in the Hebrew language. (Genesis xiv. 16: xiii.
8: xxix. 12, 15: 2 Samuel xix. 13: Numbers viii. 26: xvi. 10: Nehemiah iii. 1.) This opinion
which has been here adopted, was first advanced by Jerome, and has been very generally
received since his time; though the first of the five was supported by the most ancient of the
Fathers. Michaelis very clearly refutes all, except the first and the fifth, between which he
does not decide; mentioning, however, that though he had been early taught to respect the
latter, as the right one, he had since become more favorable to the first.

The earliest statement made concerning these relations of Jesus,

is by John, who, in giving an account of the visit made by Jesus to
Jerusalem, at the feast of the tabernacles, mentions, that the
brethren of Jesus did not believe in him, but, in a rather sneering
tone, urged him to go up to the feast, and display himself, that the
disciples who had formerly there followed him, might have an
opportunity to confirm their faith by the sight of some new miracle
done by him. Speaking to him in a very decidedly commanding tone,
they said, “Depart hence, and go into Judea, that thy disciples also
may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that does
anything in secret, while he himself seeks to be widely known; if thou
do these things, show thyself to the world.” The whole tenor of this
speech shows a spirit certainly very far from a just appreciation of
the character of their divine brother; and the base, sordid motives,
which they impute to him as ruling principles of action, were little less
than insults to the pure, high spirit, which lifted him so far above their
comprehension. The reply which Jesus made to their taunting
address, contained a decided rebuke of their presumption in thus
attacking his motives. “My time is not yet come, but yours is always
ready. The world can not hate you, but me it hates, because I testify
of it that its works are evil. Go ye up to this feast; but I am not going
yet; for my time is not yet fully come.” They might always go where
mere inclination directed them, nor was there any occasion to refer
to any higher object. But a mighty scheme was connected with his
movements, to which he directed every action. In his great work, he
had already exposed himself to the hatred of the wicked, and his
movements were now checked by a regard to the proper time for
exposing himself to it; and when that time should come, he would
unhesitatingly meet the results.

By a passage in Mark’s gospel, it appears also, that at the first

beginning of the ministry of Jesus, his relations generally were so
little prepared for a full revelation of the character and destiny of him
with whom they had long lived so familiarly as a brother and an
intimate, that they viewed with the most disagreeable surprise and
astonishment, his remarkable proceedings, in going from place to
place with his disciples,――neglecting the business to which he had
been educated, and deserting his family friends,――preaching to
vast throngs of wondering people, and performing strange works of
kindness to those who seemed to have no sort of claim on his
attention. Distressed at these strange actions, they could form no
conclusion about his conduct that seemed so reasonable and
charitable, as that he was beside himself, and needed to be
confined, to prevent him from doing mischief to himself and others,
by his seemingly extravagant and distracted conduct. “And they
came out to lay hold on him, for they said ‘He is beside himself.’”
With this very purpose, as it seems, his brothers and family relations
had come to urge and persuade him back to their home if possible,
and stood without, utterly unable to get near him, on account of the
throngs of hearers and beholders that had beset him. They were
therefore obliged to send him word, begging him to stop his
discourse and come out to them, because they wanted to see him.
The request was therefore passed along from mouth to mouth, in the
crowd, till at last those who sat next to Jesus communicated the
message to him,――“Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand
without, desiring to speak with thee.” Jesus fully apprehending the
nature of the business on which their ill-discerning regard had
brought them thither, only suspended the train of his discourse to
make such a remark as would impress all with the just idea of the
value which he set upon earthly affections, which were liable to
operate as hindrances to him in the great work to which he had been
devoted; and to convince them how much higher and stronger was
the place in his affections held by those who had joined themselves
to him for life and for death, to promote the cause of God, and to do
with him the will of his Father in heaven,――in the striking language
of inquiry, he said, “Who is my mother or my brethren?” Then looking
with an expression of deep affection around, on those who sat near
him, he said, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever
shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister and
mother.” It appears by this remark, as well as by another passage,
that he had not only brothers, but sisters, who lived at Nazareth at
that time, and were well known as his relations. No mention however
is any where made of his father; so that it would appear that Joseph
was now dead.

This remarkable faithlessness on the part of the brothers of Jesus,

may be thought to present an insuperable difficulty in the way of the
supposition that any of them could have been numbered with the
apostles. But great as seems to have been their error, it hardly
exceeded many that were made by his most select followers, even to
the time of his ascension. All the apostles may be considered to
have been in a great measure unbelievers, until the descent of the
Holy Spirit,――for until that time, on no occasion did one of them
manifest a true faith in the words of Jesus. Times almost without
number, did he declare to them that he should rise from the dead;
but notwithstanding this assertion was so often made to them in the
most distinct and solemn manner, not one of them put the slightest
confidence in his words, or believed that he would ever appear to
them again after his crucifixion. Not even the story of his
resurrection, repeatedly and solemnly attested by the women and
others, could overcome their faithlessness; so that when the risen
Lord, whose words they had so little heeded, came into their
presence, moved with a just and holy anger, “he upbraided them with
their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not
those who had seen him after he was risen.” So that his brothers at
this early period, can not be considered any worse off than the rest
of those who knew and loved him best; and if any are disposed to
oppose the view that his brethren were apostles, by quoting the
words of John, that “neither did his brethren believe in him,” a
triumphant retort may be found in the fact, that neither did his
apostles believe in him.

There were, however, other “brothers” of Jesus, besides those

who were apostles. By Matthew and Mark is also mentioned Joses,
who is nowhere mentioned as an apostle; and there may have been
others still, whose names are not given; for, in the account given, in
the first chapter of Acts, it is recorded that, besides all the eleven
apostles, there were also assembled in the upper room, Mary the
mother of Jesus, and his brethren. It is very likely, that Jesus may
have had several other cousins, who followed his fortunes, though
they were not considered by him, qualified to rank among his chosen
apostles. But a very prominent objection to the notion that they were
the children of his mother, with whom they are mentioned in such
close connection,――is, that when Jesus was on the cross, he
commended her to the care of John, his beloved disciple, as though
she were destitute of any immediate natural protector; and certainly,
if she had at that time several sons living, who were full-grown, she
could not have needed to be intrusted thus to the kindness of one
who claimed no relationship whatever to her; but would, of course,
have been secure of a home, and a comfortable support, so long as
her sons could have worked for her. These also may have been
those brethren who did not believe in him, and who considered him
beside himself, though there seems no good reason to except any of
those who are mentioned by Matthew and Mark, as his
brethren,――James, Juda, Joses and Simon.

Beyond these allusions to him, in connection with others, the

gospels take no notice whatever of this apostle; and it is only in the
Acts of the Apostles, and some of the epistles of Paul, that he is
mentioned with any great distinctness. In all those passages in the
apostolic writings where he is referred to, he is presented as a
person of high standing and great importance, and his opinions are
given in such a manner as to convey the impression that they had
great weight in the regulation of the apostolic doings. This is
particularly evident in the only passage of the Acts of the Apostles
where his words are given, which is in the account of the
consultation at Jerusalem about the great question of communion
between the circumcised and uncircumcised. On this occasion,
James is mentioned in such a way as to make it evident that he was
considered the most prominent among those who were zealous for
the preservation of the Mosaic forms, and to have been by all such,