2 Μικρός as a Description of Someone ‘Younger’

The scholar that has been most influential upon subsequent scholarship, who read μικρός as a reference to comparative age and not stature in the expression Ἰάκωβος ὁ μικρός from Mark 15.40, is Adolf Deissmann. If interpreters deal with evidence at all regarding the translation of μικρός, they usually reference his two-page section published in a collection of translated studies in 1901.Footnote ⁸ There are two primary arguments that Deissmann makes to support a reading of μικρός as a reference to age and not stature in Mark 15.40. First, Deissmann draws on the papyrological work of Dutch Egyptologist Conradus Leemans. Second, he appeals to the use of μικρός in the LXX, particularly 2 Chronicles 22.1. An examination of the evidence for these two arguments, however, shows that they do not support reading ὁ μικρός in Mark 15.40 as ‘the younger’.

Deissmann appeals to a second-century bce papyrus from Hermonthis in Egypt, for which Leemans provides a transcribed edition, textual notes and brief commentary.Footnote ⁹ Leemans labels it Papyrus N (P. Leiden Gr. 1 no. N), but it is known today as UPZ 2 181 (P. Survey 62 descr. = Trismegistos 3583; Leiden, National Museum of Antiquities Inv. 414).Footnote ¹⁰ In column 2 of the papyrus, a man named Nechoutes has negotiated the sale of a particular Asotos:

Col 2, ll. 11–13

Based on the physical description of Asotos, it is clear that he is a slave as the details of his body, especially of scars, facial features, and skin colour correspond to descriptions of other slaves in the Zenon papyri (P. Cair. Zen. 59076, Cols i-iv = Trismegistos 731 = oxford-ipap.apis.559 = p.lond.7.1947).Footnote ¹²

Quoting Leemans directly, Deissmann argues that μικρός cannot describe Nechoutes as being ‘short’ since, in a few words, he is described as μέσος, ‘medium’ (of stature). In his commentary, Leemans triangulates the Nechoutes mentioned here with another papyrus (Pap. Taur. I. Col. 5 l.11), where both Nechoutes and Asotos are mentioned, along with another person named Nechoutes.Footnote ¹³ He argues that the two are brothers and that the author uses μικρός in UPZ 2 181 to distinguish from this ‘other’ (ἄλλος) Nechoutes, that the Nechoutes of UPZ 2 181 is Nechoutes ‘the younger’.Footnote ¹⁴

There are two significant problems with Leeman's argument (and subsequently Deissmann's reliance on him). The first is that in Pap. Taur. I., the author does distinguish the two Nechoutes from one another, but not by using μικρός but rather ἄλλος; if age was of relevance, then we would expect μικρός to be mentioned or perhaps a distinguishing epithet like πρɛσβύτɛρος. More importantly, however, in UPZ 2 181, the term μέσος is not used with reference to Nechoutes but to the slave he has purchased, Asotos. It is the first in a long list of physical descriptions of his body. Therefore, μέσος does not clarify the description of Nechoutes as μικρός. Instead, it makes coherent the use of μικρός in relation to Nechoutes, that just as the slave's physical appearance is marked, so also the owner's nickname (‘short’) is used to distinguish the short-statured master from his moderately sized slave. In other words, μικρός in UPZ 2 181 does not refer to age but to height.

The other primary evidence Deissmann uses to argue μικρός can refer to comparative age is an appeal to the use of μικρός in LXX 2 Chronicles 22.1. There, Ahaziah of Israel (the LXX refers to him as Ochozias) is described as being Ahab's υἱόν…τὸν μικρὸν, his ‘little son’. The question is whether this is referring to his size or his age. There are some contextual features that indicate μικρός refers at least to his age as the same verse mentions the slaying of his elder brothers (πάντας τοὺς πρɛσβυτέρους ἀπέκτɛινɛν τὸ λῃστήριον τὸ ἐπɛλθὸν ἐπ’ αὐτούς). This is confirmed by the description in the previous chapter of Ahaziah as Ahab's ‘youngest son’ (ὁ μικρότατος τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ, 2 Chr 21.17). The superlative form of μικρός clearly describes Ahaziah's age relative to his brothers. This seems to be a clearer use of μικρός to describe age as Jacob's son Benjamin is also described as a μικρότατος in Gen 42.32. The reference to Ahaziah in 2 Chr 22.1 with μικρός recalls the previous superlative use of μικρότατος in 2 Chr 21.17. These combined contextual features reveal how μικρός is being used in this particular context of Ahaziah losing his brothers. But in the absence of such features in Mark 15.40, μικρός as a reference to age cannot be assumed. There is no indication in the text that Joses, James’ brother, is older than him. Furthermore, no other James in Mark is given the title πρɛσβύτɛρος to distinguish them from Ἰάκωβος ὁ μικρός.

The only unambiguous uses of μικρός in the LXX that connote age are with the expression ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως μɛγάλου (‘from small to great’) when μικρός is paired with μɛ́γας. This expression uses height as a metonym for age, e.g., ‘from the youngest to the oldest/smallest to the greatest’ (Gen 19.11; 1 Kgdms 5.9; 30.2; 30.19; 4 Kgdms 23.2; 25.26; 2 Chr 34.30; Jdt 13.4; 13.13; 1 Macc 5.45; Isa 22.5, 24; Jer 38.34; 49.1, 8; 51.12; Bar 1.4; cf. Num 22.18; Deut 1.17; 25.13, 14; 1 Kgdms 22.15; 25.36; 3 Kgdms 22.31; 1 Chr 25.8; 2 Chr 18.30; 4 Macc 5.20; Ps 113.21; Job 3.19; Wis 6.7; Sir 5.15; 29.23; Isa 33.4; 33.19).

When μικρός is used on its own, however, to describe a person, it usually refers to height. For example, elsewhere in the LXX, the term μικρός is used to describe children or servants who are small or diminished in height like Jonathan's small servant child (παιδάριον μικρόν) in 1 Kgdms 20.35, Mephibosheth's small son (υἱὸς μικρός) Micha in 2 Kgdm 9.12, Solomon's self-description as a small child (παιδάριον μικρόν) in 3 Kgdms 3.7, and the description of Ader as a small child (παιδάριον μικρόν) in 3 Kgdms 11.17. In none of these contexts is the comparative age of the child directly in view (e.g., ‘younger’), even while (the case of Solomon notwithstanding) being a child necessarily accompanies youth. In Judges 6.15, Gideon describes himself as ‘small’ among the house of his father: ɛἰμι μικρὸς ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ πατρός μου. But, Meyer argues, rightly, that what is in view here is not stature but that he is physically weak concerning ‘warlike aptitude’.Footnote ¹⁵ This can be seen by the parallelism with the previous clause where he describes his clan as ‘weak’ in Manasseh. It is important also to note the absence of comparative forms of μικρὀς; we are not dealing with a comparison in age, but a description of physical prowess (or rather, the lack thereof).

One possible exception to this rule is 1 Kgdms 16.11 where David is described by Jesse as ὁ μικρός. However, just before this Samuel asks Jesse if any ‘young men’ (i.e. his sons) have been left out (ἐκλɛλοίπασιν τὰ παιδάρια;) to which Jesse replies that there is still David, ὁ μικρός. Seven brothers are examined by Samuel before David, and we know that the three brothers who are named are the eldest sons of Jesse, Eliab, Abinadab and Shammah (cf. 1 Sam 17.13; 1 Chr 2.13). As Samuel proceeds from the firstborn down in age chronologically, this wider context implies that it is not David's age in view but his size. He is the youngest son (cf. 1 Chr 2.14–15).Footnote ¹⁶ In the LXX, if youthfulness is directly in view, then the term νɛ́ος or νɛανίσκος better encapsulates that meaning. For example, in 4 Kgdms 5.2, a ‘small young woman’ (νɛᾶνις μικρά) is captured, and the text distinguishes between stature and age. If Mark's point was to emphasise the relative age of James, it would have made more sense for him to use this language or comparative/superlative forms like those found in the previous examples from the LXX (2 Chr 21.17; Gen 42.32). This is precisely the argument made by Theodor Zahn over a century ago, that if Mark had intended ὁ μικρὸς to be a nickname to contrast another well-known James, then the author would have used ὁ μικρότɛρος or ὁ νɛώτɛρος instead.Footnote ¹⁷

Deissmann's appeals to the papyri and the LXX for uses of μικρός that refer to comparative come up short. Even if both of Deissmann's examples (UPZ 2 181 and 2 Chr 22:1) demonstrated that μικρός could refer to age, it does not follow that the description of Ἰάκωβος as ὁ μικρός must necessarily refer to relative age, given its wide usage as a descriptor of size. This is especially true given the fact that, as we will see in the next section, ὁ μικρός was a widely popularized nickname across the ancient Mediterranean for a person with short stature.

3 Μικρός as a Nickname for Height and Affection

It is not news to New Testament scholars that the authors of the Gospels (or the traditions behind them) attribute nicknames to key disciples and figures in their accounts. In the Gospel of Mark, for example, we have at least five disciples with nicknames, including the James of Mark 15.40.Footnote ¹⁸ Ἰάκωβος ὁ μικρός is also clearly a nickname, and while scholarship has recognised this in the context of the Gospel of Mark, it has not yet been recognised that ὁ μικρός was a common nickname in ancient Greek sources.

The only scholar, to my knowledge, who has understood ὁ μικρός as a perceivable nickname is Richard Bauckham. In a short footnote twenty years ago, Bauckham appealed not to Graeco-Roman literature, but to late antique Jewish epigraphic evidence. He cites five ancient epigraphic examples:

Bauckham's evidence seems to clearly demonstrate that individuals in ancient Jewish communities were given nicknames related to their height, not necessarily their age in relation to others (‘younger’). There are a few minor issues that arise. The first is that the inscriptional evidence that Bauckham draws on is quite late in relation to the first century. CIIP 6962 and 6974 (= CIJ II 1038 (BS ii 28) and CIJ II 1039 (BS ii 29)) come from the Beth Sheʿarim necropolis, specifically in Hall G of Catacomb I, which dates to the third to fourth centuries ce.Footnote ²⁰

Given that this is a family tomb with children, it is possible that the references to the Ioseph and Ioudas as ‘small’ may refer to them being children. It is true that children are young, and they are little, but such language is not comparing their age relative to the age of others (e.g., ‘younger’) but rather their stage of life as signified by height (childhood). CIIP 6974 presents a further problem with what appears to be a bilingual parallel between the Greek and Hebrew. Schwabe and Lifshitz agree that the Hebrew הקטן corresponds with the Greek address φίλτατɛ.Footnote ²³ If this is the case, then הקטן is not a descriptor of height, per se, but a term of endearment and affection.

Although הקטן can simply be translated as ‘the small’, its semantic use in ancient Jewish funerary inscriptions can be more complicated. In the same necropolis but a different catacomb in Beth Sheʿarim, Catacomb 15, there is a grave inscription for ‘Anina the Little’ (אנינא/הקטן).Footnote ²⁴ Beth Sheʿarim was a known place where many of the sages purportedly lived and were buried (in Catacomb 14, there is even the alleged tomb of Judah HaNasi). As Bauckham showed, there were figures in rabbinic Judaism who had the nickname ‘the Small’ (הקטן). One such Tannaitic sage was Shmuel HaKatan (סמואל הקטן, Samuel the Small) mentioned in m. Avot 4.19. But for Talmudic interpreters, הקטן was not necessarily an indicator of height but of humility: y. Sotah 9.13: ‘Why was he called “the Small”? Because he would make his bones small’ (נקרא ולמה שׁמו קטן. לפי שׁהוא מקטין עצמו). Indeed, Talmudic traditions acknowledge his humility among the sages (e.g., b. Sanh. 11a; b. Sotah 48b; y. Sandh. 1.2). Thus, the use of הקטן in funerary inscriptions is by no means a clear reference to height. The epithet הקטן could be a reference to height or age or disposition.

Notwithstanding the late date of these inscriptions and the semantic ambiguity of corresponding Hebrew nicknames, this evidence is not contradicted wholesale by wider Mediterranean Greek language evidence, but rather bolstered, since Greek sources show that this pattern of nicknaming people based on their short stature occurred well before the fourth-century ce.

In ancient Greek sources, when μικρός without the definite article is attributed to a person, it often describes that person as being short, not young.Footnote ²⁵ According to Origen, the later early Christian antagonist Celsus calls Jesus ‘little and ugly and undistinguished’ (μικρὸν καὶ δυσɛιδɛ̀ς καὶ ἀγɛννɛ̀ς, Cels. 6.75). Similarly, Paul in the Acts of Paul and Thecla (ATh 3) describes Paul as being ‘a small man with regard to height’ (ἄνδρα μικρὸν τῷ μɛγɛ́θɛι).Footnote ²⁶ Zacchaeus in the New Testament, of course, is described as being ‘short in stature’ (τῇ ἡλικίᾳ μικρός) in Luke 19.3.Footnote ²⁷ Although Heinrich Meyer does not cite Deissmann, he reacts against the interpretation of ὁ μικρός as ‘the younger’ saying that it is based in arbitrariness, and instead appeals to Zacchaeus in Luke 19.3.Footnote ²⁸ Meyer also draws attention to Homer, Il. 5.801 where Tydeus is described as being ‘short’ (μικρός) and Xenophon, Cyr. 8.4.20 where Cyrus says Chrysantas must marry a wife who is ‘short’ (μικρός).

With the definite article, however, ὁ μικρός was used as a recurring nickname in extant sources. Numerous figures in ancient Greek literature are given ὁ μικρός as a moniker. Aristophanes mentions a certain Cleigenes ‘the Short’ (Κλɛιγένης ὁ μικρός) in his play Frogs (Ran. 708). Socrates was known for referring to himself as ‘the short one’ (οὗτος ὁ αὐτὸς σμικρός ɛἰμι, Phaedo 120e) with the Old Attic form of μικρός. Xenophon calls Aristodemus of Cydathenaeum ‘the one nicknamed “little”’ (τὸν μικρὸν ἐπικαλούμɛνον, Mem. 1.4.2), a description given also by Plato (cf. Symp. 137b). Aristotle mentions a certain Amyntas ‘the Little’ (Ἀμύντου τοῦ μικροῦ, Pol. 1311b1-19) who was attacked by a certain Derdas because he mocked his stature. Diogenes Laertius (Lives 1.4 Pittacus (79)) in his life of Pittacus of Mytilene refers to another person named Pittacus who was addressed as ‘(the) Short’ (ὃς καὶ μικρὸς προσηγορɛύθη).

Figures in Greek epigrams are given ὁ μικρός as a satirical nickname to make fun of their height. For example, in epigrams from the first-century author Lucillius preserved in the Greek Anthology, μικρός is appended to names of those with extremely short stature. ‘Little Erotion’ is carried away by a mosquito (τὴν μικρὴν παίζουσαν Ἐρώτιον ἥρπασɛ κώνωψ, Anth. pal. 11.88).Footnote ²⁹ ‘Little Marcus’ (Μάρκος ὁ μικρός) hangs himself on a fruit pit (Anth. pal. 11.90). ‘Little Macron’ strangles a mouse to death in its burrow (τὸν μικρὸν Μάκρωνα, Anth. pal. 11.95). In each of these instances, the name of a person is accompanied by the corresponding form of ὁ μικρός as a nickname about stature.

Finally, as with the use of ὁ μικκός (the Doric/Boeotian form of ὁ μικρός) and הקטן in some late antique Jewish epigraphy, ὁ μικρός is also used in Egyptian papyri to refer to children. In SB 5 7576 (Trismegistos 25302), a first- to second-century ce papyrus from the Elephantine region, a woman named Sennemonis sends a letter to Hatres about acknowledging receipt of bread and mantles. A certain ‘little Ammonis’ is the letter's ending greeting: ‘The little Ammonis greets you’ (ἀσπάζɛταί σɛ Ἀμμῶνις ὁ μικρός, l. 6).Footnote ³⁰ It is possible that this is a nickname referring to an adult with short stature, but given the context, it may be an affectionate term for Sennemonis’ child (he shares the same theophoric root as her own, Amon). A similar situation can be found in SB 5 7572 (Trismegistos 27328), a second-century ce papyrus from Philadelphia (Arsinoites). Thermouthas writes to her mother, Valerias, also acknowledging receipt of some items. She greets various family members and two girls whom she calls ‘little’: ‘the little Nikarous’ (Νικαροῦν τὴν μικράν) and ‘the little Taesis’ (Ταῆσιν τὴν μικράν).Footnote ³¹ The affectionate language used—that she longs (l. 11, ἐπιθυμο = ἐπιθυμῶ) for members of her mother's household—suggests a familial context, and it would be superfluous to have two members of a household with the nickname. There is also a third-century ce papyrus letter from Oxyrhynchus sent by Diogenis to her brother Alexander, PSI 9 1080 (Trismegistos 30667 = Sel. Pap. I 132), which mentions a boy named ‘little Theon’ (τὸν μικρὸν Θέωνα).Footnote ³² We know he is a boy because the papyrus mentions that eight toys have been brought for him. The use of ὁ μικρός in these Egyptian letters shows that it was not just used as a nickname for grown adults but also as an affectionate term for a young child. Children, of course, are short, so there is a natural reason why one would use ὁ μικρός as a term of endearment (cf. Matt 18.6, 10, 14).

Turning to Ἰάκωβος ὁ μικρός in Mark 15.40, what are the implications for the text of these wider uses of ὁ μικρός in Greek sources? Given the prevalence of using ὁ μικρός as a nickname for so many individuals in ancient Greek literature, if this James is considered an adult, readers would have understood the epithet to be a reference to his stature—his height—and not his relative age in relation to another person. If, however, one does not presume James is an adult, and that he is a little child, like Ioseph, Iouda, Ammonis, Nikarous, and Taesis mentioned above, then it is also possible that ὁ μικρός in Mark 15.40 is a term of endearment that does not concern comparative age (‘younger’).

One might argue that the use of ὁ μικρός as a term of endearment for a child suggests comparative age since, in the case of Mark 15.40, James is ‘younger’ than others, not least presumably the James mentioned in 6.3. However, the relative age of James ὁ μικρός only arises as an implication when 15.40 is put into dialogue with 6.3. It is not something that arises lexically from the semantics of ὁ μικρός and the immediate context of Mark 15.40. Following this logic, and if James is understood to be a child, while it is possible to infer that James is relatively ‘younger’ than his family around him—Mary and Joses—the semantics of the epithet ὁ μικρός are specifically an affectionate indication of his status as a little human. Following this pattern in ancient Greek sources, then, it is clear that Ἰάκωβος ὁ μικρός should not be translated as ‘James the younger’ but ‘James the Short’ or, if there are reasons to understand him as a child, ‘Little James’.

It is more probable, in the opinion of this author, that ὁ μικρός is a nickname of affectation rather than about height since the purpose of nicknames is to refer to already well-known individuals. Given that no one is known as James ‘the short’ in early Christianity, except in Mark 15.40, this person was probably not well known, and thus there was no need to give them a recognisable nickname. For this reason, it may be more likely an affective epithet.

With the possibility that James is a child, also comes the possibility that Mark preserves an affectionate title from the gospel tradition itself. It may be potentially a creation from Mark himself but to what end? What kind of historical validity would it bring to his bios other than to cause confusion (as it has at least among scholars of traditions about James). It may be more likely that this is something that arises from Mark himself or his sources, potentially even from Peter (if the Petrine origins of the Gospel are to be trusted). In the epigraphic sources, the affectionate use of ὁ μικρός is used by family members, relatives, or close family friends. In the case of Mark 15.40, this may suggest that the author (or at least the implied narrator) has personal knowledge or a personal connection with James’ particular family.

Finally, if ὁ μικρός does suggest the James of Mark 15.40 is a child, then this is a clear indication that this is not the same James as Jesus’ brother mentioned in Mark 6.3. In other words, if it is a term of affection for a little human, then it cannot be the ecclesial leader James, because James becomes a prominent leader in the early Jesus movement in the subsequent years after his death (Acts 15.13) and by the time of Paul's later ministry was among the elders in Jerusalem (Acts 21.18; cf. Gal 1.19). If he was born after Jesus, then he may have been in his 50s-60s at this time, and it would be hardly accurate to describe him with a term of endearment for children during the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. This confirms the previous observations of past scholars that the title is meant to distinguish the James of 15.40 from 6.3. Or rather, more precisely, the title is meant to distinguish Mary, mother of James and Joses in 15.40, from the Mary in 6.3.