I.THE GALILEAN APOSTLES.SIMON CEPHAS,COMMONLY CALLED SIMON PETER.HIS APOSTOLIC RANK.Theorder in which the names of the apostles are arranged in this book, can make little difference in the interest which their history will excite in the reader’s mind, nor can such an arrangement, of itself, do much to affect his opinion of their comparative merits; yet to their biographer, it becomes a matter of some importance, as well as interest, to show not only authority, but reason, for the order in which he ranks them.Sufficientauthorityfor placing Simon Cephas first, is found in the three lists of the apostles given respectively by Matthew, Mark and Luke, which, though differing as to their arrangement in some particulars, entirely agree in giving to this apostle the precedence of all. But it would by no means become the earnest and faithful searcher into sacred history, to rest satisfied with a bare reference to the unerring word, on a point of so much interest. So far from it, the strictest reverence for the sacred record both allows and urges the inquiry, as to what were the circumstances of Peter’s life and character, that led the three evangelists thus unanimously and decidedly to place him at the head of the sacred band, on all whom, in common, rested the commissioned power of doing the marvelous works of Jesus, and spreading his gospel in all the world. Was this preference the result of mere incidental circumstances, such as age, prior calling,&c.? Or, does it mark a pre-eminence of character or qualifications, entitling him to lead and rule the apostolic company in the name of Christ, as the commissioned chief of the faithful?Thereasonof this preference, as far as connected with his character, will of course be best shown in the incidents of his life and conduct, as detailed in this narrative. But even here muchmay be brought forward to throw light on the ground of Peter’s rank, as first of the apostles. It is no more than fair to remark, however, that some points of this inquiry have been very deeply, and at the same time, very unnecessarily involved in the disputes between Protestants and Papists, respecting the original supremacy of the church of Rome, as supposed to have been founded or ruled by this chief apostle.Of the many suppositions which might be made to account for Peter’s priority of station on the apostolic list, it may be enough to notice the following: That he was by birth the oldest of the twelve. This assertion, however boldly made by some, rests entirely on conjecture, as we have no certain information on this point, either from the New Testament or any ancient writer of indisputable credit. Those of the early Christian writers who allude to this matter, are quite contradictory in their statements, some supposing Peter to be the oldest of the apostles, and some supposing Andrew to be older than his brother;——a discrepancy that may well entitle us to conclude that they had no certain information about the matter. The weight of testimony, however, seems rather against the assertion that Peter was the oldest, inasmuch as the earliest writer who alludes at all to the subject, very decidedly pronounces Andrew to have been the older brother. Enough, then, is known, to prevent our relying on his seniority as the true ground of his precedence. Still this point must be considered as entirely doubtful; so doubtful that it cannot be considered as proof, in the argument.The oldest Christian writer, who refers in any way to the comparative age of Peter, is Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, as early as A. D. 368. In his great work against heresies, (bookii.vol. 1, heresy 51,) in narrating the call of Andrew and Peter, he says, “The meeting (with Jesus) happened first to Andrew, Peter being less than him in age,” (μικροτερου οντος τω χρονῳ της ἡλικιας.) “But afterwards, when their complete forsaking of all earthly things is mentioned, Peter takes precedence, since God, who sees the turn of all characters, and knows who is fit for the highest places, chose Peter as the chief leader (αρχηγον) of his disciples.” This, certainly, is a very distinct assertion of Peter’s juniority, and is plainly meant to give the idea that Peter’s high rank among the apostles was due to a superiority of talent, which put him above those who were older.In favor of the assertion that Peter was older than Andrew, the earliest authority that has ever been cited, is John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, about A. D. 400. This Father, in his homily on Matthewxvii.27, (Homily 59,) says that Peter was a “first-born son,” (πρωτοτοκος.) In this passage, he is speaking of the tribute paid by Jesus and Peter for the expenses of the temple. He supposes that this tribute was the redemption-money due from the first-born sons of the Jews, for their exemption from the duties of the priesthood. But the account of this tax, in Numbersiii.44–51, shows that this was a tax offiveshekels apiece, while that spoken of by Matthew, is called thedidrachmon, a Greek coin equivalent to ahalf-shekel. Now the half-shekel tax was that paid byeveryJew above the age of twenty years, for the expenses of the temple service, as is fully described in Exodusxxx.12–16;xxxviii.26. Josephus also mentions this half-shekel tax, as due fromeveryJew,for the service of the temple. (See Hammond on Matthewxvii.24.) Chrysostom is therefore wholly in the wrong, about the nature of the tax paid by Jesus and Peter; (verse 27, “give it for me and thee,”) and the reason which he gives for the payment, (namely, that they were both first-born sons,) being disproved, his belief of Peter’s seniority is shown to be based on an error, and therefore entitled to no credit whatever; more particularly, when opposed to the older authority of Epiphanius.Lardner, in support of the opinion that Peter was the oldest, quotes also Cassian and Bede; but it is most manifest that a bare assertion of two writers, who lived, one of them 424, and the other 700 years after Christ,——an assertion unsupported by any proof whatever, cannot be received as evidence in the case. The most naturalconjectureof any one who was accounting for the eminence of Peter, would be that he was older than the brother of whom he takes precedence so uniformly; and it is no more than just to conclude, therefore, that the ground of this notion was but a mere guess. But in the case of Epiphanius, besides the respect due to the early authority, it is important to observe, that he could have no motive for inventing the notion of Andrew’s seniority, since the uniform prominence of Peter would most naturally suggest the idea thathewas the oldest. It is fair to conclude, then, that an opinion, so unlikely to be adopted without special proof, must have had the authority of uniform early tradition; for Epiphanius mentions it as if it were a universally admitted fact; nor does he seem to me to have invented the notion of Andrew’s seniority, to account for his being first known to Jesus, though he mentions these two circumstances in their natural connection. Yet Lampius, in his notes on Johni.supposing that Epiphanius arranged the facts on the principle “post hoc, ergo, propter hoc,” has rejected this Father’s declaration of Andrew’s seniority, as a mere invention, to account for this apostle’s prior acquaintance with Jesus. The reader may judge between them.Lardner, moreover, informs us that Jerome maintains the opinion, that Peter was preferred before the other apostles on account of his age. But a reference to the original passage, shows that the comparison was only between Peter and John, and not between Peter and the rest of the apostles. Speaking of Peter as the constituted head of the church, he says that was done to avoid dissensions, (ut schismatis tollatur occasio.) The question might then arise, why was not John chosen first, being so pure and free from connections that might interfere with apostolic duties? (Cur non Johannes electus est virgo? Aetati delatum est, quia Petrusseniorerat; ne adhuc adolescens ac pene puer progressae aetatis hominibus praeferretur.) “It was out of regard to age, because Peter wasolder(than John;) nor could one who was yet immature, and little more than a boy, be preferred to a man of mature age.” The passage evidently does not touch the question of Peter’s being the oldest of all, nor does it contradict, in any way, the opinion that Andrew was older, as all which Jerome says is, merely, that Peter was older than John,——an opinion unquestionably accordant with the general voice of all ancient Christian tradition.The character of Epiphanius, however, it must be acknowledged, is so low for judgment and accuracy, that his word is not of itself sufficient to establish any very doubtful fact, as certain. Yet in this case, there is no temptation to pervert facts on a point of so little interest or importance, and one on which no prejudice could govern his decision. We may therefore give him, in this matter, about all the credit due to his antiquity. Still, there is much more satisfactory proof of Peter’s not being the oldest apostle, founded on various circumstances of apostolic history, which will be referred to in their places.Nor can priority of calling be offered as the reason of this apparent superiority; for the minute record given by the evangelist John, makes it undeniable that Andrew became acquainted with Jesus before Peter, and that the eminent disciple was afterwards first made known to Jesus, by means of his less highly honored brother.The only reasonable supposition left, then, is, that there was an intentional preference of Simon Cephas, on the score of eminencefor genius, zeal, knowledge, prudence, or some other quality which fitted him for taking the lead of the chief ministers of the Messiah. The word “first,” which accompanies his name in Matthew’s list, certainly appears, in the view of some, to have some force above the mere tautological expression of a fact so very self-evident from the collocation, as that he was first on the list. The Bible shows not an instance of a list begun in that way, with this emphatic word so vainly and unmeaningly applied. The analogies of expression in all languages, ancient and modern, would be very apt to lead a common reader to think that the numeral adjective thus prefixed, was meant to give the idea that Simon Peter was putfirstfor some better reason than mere accident. Any person, in giving a list of twelve eminent men, all devoted to a common pursuit, and laboring in one great cause, whose progress he was attempting to record, would, in arranging them, if he disregarded the circumstances of seniority,&c., very naturally give them place according to their importance in reference to the great subject before him. If, as in the present case, three different persons should, in the course of such a work, make out such a list, an individual difference of opinion about a matter of mere personal preference, like this, might produce variations in the minor particulars; but where all three united in giving to one and the same person, the first and most honorable place, the ordinary presumption would unavoidably be, that the prior rank of the person thus distinguished, was considered, by them at least, at the time when they wrote, as decidedly and indisputably established. The determination of a point so trifling being without any influence on matters of faith and doctrine, each evangelist might, without detriment to the sanctity and authority of the record which he bears, be left to follow his own private opinion of the most proper principle of arrangement to be followed in enumerating the apostles. Thus, while it is noticeable that the whole twelve were disposed in six pairs by each of the evangelists, yet the order and succession of these is somewhat changed, by different circumstances directing the choice of each writer. Matthew modestly puts himself after Thomas, with whom he seems by all the gospel lists, to have some close connection; but Mark and Luke combine to give Matthew the precedence, and invert the order in which, through unobtrusiveness, he had, as it would seem, robbed true merit of its due superiority. And yet these points of precedence were so little looked to, that in the first chapterof Acts, Luke makes a new arrangement of these names, advancing Thomas to the precedency, not only of Matthew, but of Bartholomew, who, in all other places where their names are given, is mentioned before him. So also Matthew prefers to mention the brothers together, and gives Andrew a place immediately after Peter, although, in so many places after, he speaks of Peter, James and John together, as most highly distinguished by Christ, and favored by opportunities of beholding him and his works, on occasions when other eyes were shut out. Mark, on the contrary, gives these names with more strict reference to distinction of rank, and mentions the favored trio together, first of all, making the affinities of birth of less consequence than the share of favor enjoyed by each with the Messiah. Luke, in his gospel, follows Matthew’s arrangement of the brothers, but in the first chapter of Acts puts the three great apostles first, separating Andrew from his brother, and mentioning him after the sons of Zebedee. These changes of arrangement, while they show of how little vital importance the order of names was considered, yet, by the uniform preservation of Peter in the first rank, prove that the exalted pre-eminence of Peter was so universally known and acknowledged, that whatever difference of opinion writers might entertain respecting more obscure persons,——as to him, no inversion of order could be permitted.How far Peter was by this pre-eminence endowed with any supremacy over the other apostles, may of course be best shown in those places of his history, which appear either to maintain or question this position.That Simon Cephas, or Peter, then, was the first or chief of the apostles, appears from the uniform precedence with which his name is honored on all occasions in the Scriptures, where the order in which names are mentioned could be made to depend on rank,——by the universal testimony of the Fathers, and by the general impressions entertained on this point throughout the Christian world, in all ages since his time.HIS BIRTH.From two separate passages in the gospels, we learn that the name of the father of Simon Peter was Jonah, but beyond this we have no direct information as to his family. From the terms in which Peter is frequently mentioned along with the other apostles, we infer, however, that he must have been from the lowest order of society, which also appears from the business to whichhe devoted his life, before he received the summons that sent him forth to the world, on a far higher errand. Of such a humble family, he was born at Bethsaida, in Galilee, on or near the shore of the sea of Galilee, otherwise called lake Tiberias, or Gennesaret. Upon this lake he seems to have followed his laborious and dangerous livelihood, which very probably, in accordance with the hereditary succession of trades, common among the Jews, was the occupation of his father and ancestors before him. Of the time of his birth no certain information can be had, as those who were able to inform us, were not disposed to set so high a value upon ages and dates, as the writers and readers of later times. The most reasonable conjecture as to his age, is, that he was about the same age with Jesus Christ; which rests on the circumstances of his being married at the period when he was first called by Christ,——his being made the object of such high confidence and honor by his Master, and the eminent standing which he seems to have maintained, from the first, among the apostles. Still there is nothing in all these circumstances, that is irreconcilable with the supposition that he was younger than Christ; and if any reader prefers to suppose the period of his birth so much later, there is no important point in his history or character that will be affected by such a change of dates.Bethsaida.——The name of this place occurs in several passages of gospel history, as connected with the scenes of the life of Jesus. (Matthewxi.21; Markvi.45,viii.22–26; Lukeix.10,x.13; Johni.45,xii.21.) The name likewise occurs in the writings of Josephus, who describes Bethsaida, and mentions some circumstances of its history. The common impression among the New Testament commentators has been, that the Bethsaida which is so often mentioned in the gospels, was on the western shore of lake Gennesaret, near the other cities which were the scenes of important events in the life of Jesus. Yet Josephus distinctly implies that Bethsaida was situated on the eastern shore of the lake, as he says that it was built by Philip the tetrarch, in Lower Gaulonitis, (Jewish war, bookii.chapter 9, section 1,) which was on the eastern side of the Jordan and the lake, though not inPeraea, as Lightfoot rather hastily assumes; for Peraea, though by its derivation (fromπεραν,peran, “beyond,”) meaning simply “what was beyond” the river, yet was, in the geography of Palestine, applied to only that portion of the country east of Jordan, which extends from Moab on the south, northward, to Pella, on the Jabbok. (Josephus, Jewish war, bookiii.chapter 3, section 3.) Another point in which the account given by Josephus differs from that in the gospels, is, that while Josephus places Bethsaida in Gaulonitis, John (xii.21,) speaks of it distinctly as a city of Galilee, and Peter, as well as others born in Bethsaida, is called a Galilean. These two apparent disagreements have led many eminent writers to conclude that there were on and near the lake, two wholly different places bearing the name of Bethsaida. Schleusner, Bretschneider, Fischer, Pococke, Reland, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, and others, have maintained this opinion with many arguments. But Lightfoot, Cave, Calmet, Baillet, Macknight, Wells, and others, have decided that these differences can be perfectly reconciled, and all the circumstances related in the gospels, made to agree with Josephus’s account of the situation of Bethsaida.TIBERIAS AND THE SEA OF GALILEE.Marki.16. Johnvi.1.The first passage in which Josephus mentions this place, is in his Jewish Antiquities, bookxviii.chapter 2, section 1. “And he, (Philip) having granted to the villageof Bethsaida, near the lake of Gennesaret, the rank of a city, by increasing its population, and giving it importance in other ways, called it by the name of Julia, the daughter of Caesar,” (Augustus.) In his History of the Jewish War, bookii.chapter 9, section 1, he also alludes to it in a similar connection. Speaking, as in the former passage, of the cities built by Herod and Philip in their tetrarchies, he says, “The latter built Julias, in Lower Gaulanitis.” In the same history, bookiii.chapter 9, section 7, describing the course of the Jordan, he alludes to this city. “Passing on (from lake Semechonitis,) one hundred and twenty furlongs farther,tothe city Julias, it flows through the middle of lake Gennesar.” In this passage I translate the prepositionμετα(meta,) by the English “to,” though Hudson expresses it in Latin by “post,” and Macknight by the English “behind.” Lightfoot very freely renders it “ante,” but with all these great authorities against me, I have the consolation of finding my translation supported by the antique English version of the quaint Thomas Lodge, who distinctly expresses the preposition in this passage by “unto.” This translation of the word is in strict accordance with the rule that this Greek preposition, when it comes before the accusative after a verb of motion, has the force of “to,” or “against.” (See Jones’s Lexicon,sub voc.μετα; also Hederici Lexicon.) But in reference toplaces, it never has the meaning of “behind,” given to it by Macknight, nor of “post,” in Latin, as in Hudson’s translation, still less of “ante,” as Lightfoot very queerly expresses it. The passage, then, simply means that the Jordan, after passing out of lake Semechonitis, flows one hundred and twenty furlongstothe city of Julias or Bethsaida, (notbehindit, norbeforeit,) and there enters lake Gennesar, the whole expressing as clearly as may be, that Julias stood on the river just where it widens into the lake. That Julias stood on the Jordan, and not on the lake, though near it, is made further manifest, by a remark made by Josephus, in his memoirs of his own life. He, when holding a military command in the region around the lake, during the war against the Romans, on one occasion, sent against the enemy a detachment of soldiers, who “encamped near the river Jordan, about a furlong from Julias.” (Life of Josephus, section 72.)It should be remarked, moreover, that, at the same time when Philip enlarged Bethsaida, in this manner, and gave it the name of Julia, the daughter of Augustus Caesar, his brother Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, with a similar ambition to exalt his own glory, and secure the favor of the imperial family, rebuilt a city in his dominions, named Betharamphtha, to which he gave the nameJuliasalso; but in honor, not of the daughter, but of the wife of Augustus, who bore the family name, Julia, which passed from her to her daughter. This multiplication of namesake towns, has only created new confusion for us; for the learned Lightfoot, in his Chorographic century on Matthew, has unfortunately taken this for the Julias which stood on the Jordan, at its entrance into the lake, and accordingly applies to Julias-Betharamphtha, the last two quotations from Josephus, given above, which I have applied to Julias-Bethsaida. But it would seem as if this most profound Biblical scholar was certainly in the wrong here; since Julias-Betharamphtha must have been built by Herod Antipas within his own dominions, that is, in Galilee proper, or Peraea proper, as already bounded; and Josephus expressly says that this Julias was in Peraea; yet Lightfoot, in his rude little wood-cut map, (Horae Hebraica et Talmudicae in Marci, Decas Chorographica chapterv.) has put this in Gaulanitis, far north of its true place, at the influx of the Jordan into the lake, (“ad ipsissimum influxum Jordanis in lacum Gennesariticum,”) and Julias-Bethsaida, also in Gaulanitis, some miles lower down, at the south-east corner of the lake, a position adopted by no other writer that I know of. This peculiarity in Lightfoot’s views, I have thus stated at length, that those who may refer to hisHoraefor more light, might not suppose a confusion in my statement, which does not exist; for since the Julias-Betharamphtha of Herod could not have been in Gaulanitis, but in Peraea, the Julias at the influx of the Jordan into the lake, must have been the Bethsaida embellished by Philip, tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, (Lukeiii.1,) which included Gaulanitis, Batanea,&c.east of Jordan and the lake, and north of Peraea proper. The substance of Josephus’s information on this point, is, therefore, that Bethsaida stood on the eastern side of the Jordan, just where it enters lake Gennesar, or Gennesaret, (otherwise called lake Tiberias and the sea of Galilee,)——that it stood in the province of Gaulanitis, within the dominions of Philip, son of Herod the Great, and tetrarch of all that portion of Palestine which lies north of Peraea, on the east of Jordan, and the lake, as well as of the region north of Galilee, his tetrarchy forming a sort of crescent,——that this prince, having enlarged and embellished Bethsaida, raised it from a village to the rank of a city, by the nameof Julias, in honor of Julia, daughter of Augustus Caesar. This was done during the reign of Augustus, (Josephus, in Jewish Antiquities booki.chapter 2, section 1,) and of course long before Jesus Christ began his labors, though after his birth, because it was after the death of Herod the Great.The question now is, whether the Bethsaida mentioned by the evangelists is by them so described as to be in any way inconsistent with the account given by Josephus, of the place to which he gives that name. The first difficulty which has presented itself to the critical commentators, on this point, is the fact, that the Bethsaida of the gospels is declared in them to have been a city of Galilee, (Johnxii.21,) and those who were born and brought up in it are called Galileans, (Markxiv.70, Lukexxii.59, Actsi.7,ii.7.) Yet Josephus expressly tells us, that Bethsaida was in Gaulanitis, which was not in Galilee, as he bounds it, but was beyond its eastern boundary, on the eastern side of the river and lake. (Jewish war, bookxviii.chapter 2, section 1.) This is therefore considered by many, as a diversity between the two accounts, which must make it impossible to apply them both to the same place. But there is no necessity for such a conclusion. The different application of the term Galilee, in the two books, must be noticed, in order to avoid confusion. Josephus is very exact in the use of names of places and regions, defining geographical positions and boundaries with a particularity truly admirable. Thus, in mentioning the political divisions of Palestine, he gives the precise limits of each, and uses their names, not in the loose, popular way, but only in his own accurate sense. But the gospel writers are characterized by no such minute particularity, in the use of names, which they generally apply in the popular, rather than the exact sense. Thus, in this case, they use the term Galilee, in what seems to have been its common meaning in Judea, as a name for all the region north of Samaria and Peraea, on both sides of the Jordan, including, of course, Gaulanitis and all the dominions of Philip. The difference between them and Josephus, on this point, is very satisfactorily shown in another passage. In Actsv.37, Gamaliel, speaking of several persons who had at different times disturbed the peace of the nation, mentions one Judas, theGalilean, as a famous rebel. Now this same person is very particularly described by Josephus, (Jewis Antiquities bookxv.chapter 1, section 1,) in such a manner that there can be no doubt of his identity with the previous description. Yet Josephus calls him distinctly, Judas theGaulanite, and only once Judas theGalilean; showing him to have been from the city of Gamala, in the country east of Jordan and the lake; so that the conclusion is unavoidable, that the term Galilee is used in a much wider sense in the New Testament than in Josephus, being applied indiscriminately to the region on both sides of the lake. The people of southern Palestine called the whole northern section Galilee, and all its inhabitants, Galileans, without attending to the nicer political and geographical distinctions; just as the inhabitants of the southern section of the United States, high and low, call every stranger a Yankee, who is from any part of the country north of Mason and Dixon’s line, though well-informed people perfectly well know, that the classic and not despicable name of Yankee belongs fairly and truly to the ingenious sons of New England alone, who have made their long-established sectional title so synonymous with acuteness and energy, that whenever an enterprising northerner pushes his way southward, he shares in the honors of this gentile appellative. Just in the same vague and careless way, did the Jews apply the name Galilean to all the energetic, active northerners, who made themselves known in Jerusalem, either by their presence or their fame; and thus both Judas of Gaulanitis, and those apostles who were from the eastern side of the river, were called Galileans, as well as those on the west, in Galilee proper. Besides, in the case of Bethsaida, which was immediately on the line between Galilee and Gaulanitis, it was still more natural to refer it to the larger section on the west, with many of whose cities it was closely connected.Besides, that the Jews considered Galilee as extending beyond Jordan, is most undeniably clear from Isaiahix.1, where the prophet plainly speaks of “Galilee of the nations, as being by the side of the sea, beyond Jordan.” This was the ancient Jewish idea of the country designated by this name, and the idea of limiting it to the west of Jordan, was a mere late term introduced by the Romans, and apparently never used by the Jews of the gospel times, except when speaking of the political divisions of Palestine. The name Gaulanitis, which is the proper term for the province in which Bethsaida was, never occurs in the bible. Kuinoel, Rosenmueller,&c.give a different view, however, of “beyond Jordan,” on Matthewiv.15.But a still more important difficulty has been suggested, in reference to the identity of the place described by Josephus, with that mentioned in the gospels. This is, thefact that in the gospels it is spoken of in such a connection, as would seem to require its location on the western side. A common, but very idle argument, in favor of this supposition, is, that Bethsaida is mentioned frequently along with Capernaum and other cities of Galilee proper, in such immediate connection as to make it probable that it was on the same side of the river and lake with them. But places separated merely by a river, or at most by a narrow lake, whose greatest breadth was only five miles, could not be considered distant from each other, and would very naturally be spoken of as near neighbors. The most weighty argument, however, rests on a passage in Markvi.45, where it is said that Jesus constrained his disciples to “get into a vessel, to go before him to the other sideuntoBethsaida,” after the five thousand had been fed. Now the parallel passage in Johnvi.17, says that they, following this direction, “went over the sea towards Capernaum,” and that when they reached the shore, “they came into the land of Gennesaret,” both which are understood to be on the western side. But on the other hand, we are distinctly told, by Luke, (ix.10,) that the five thousand were fed in “a desert place, belonging to (or near) the city which is called Bethsaida.” On connecting these two passages, therefore, (in John and Mark,) according to the common version, the disciples sailed from Bethsaida on one side, to Bethsaida on the other, a construction which has been actually adopted by those who maintain the existence of two cities of the same name on different sides of the lake. But what common reader is willing to believe, that in this passage Luke refers to a place totally different from the one meant in all other passages where the name occurs, and more particularly in the very next chapter, (x.13,) where he speaks of the Bethsaida which had been frequented before by Jesus, without a word of explanation to show that it was a different place? But in the expression, “to go before him to the other side,TOBethsaida,” the word “TO” may be shown, by a reference to the Greek, to convey an erroneous idea of the situation of the places. The prepositionπρος, (pros,) may have, not merely the sense ofto, with the idea of motion towards a place, but in some passages even of Mark’s gospel, may be most justly translated “near,” or “before,” (as inii.2, “not evenabout” or “before” the door, and inxi.4, “tiedby” orbefore“the door.”) This is the meaning which seems to be justified by the collocation here, and the meaning in which I am happy to find myself supported by the acute and accurate Wahl, in his Clavis Novi Testamenti underπρος, which he translates in this passage by the Latinjuxta,prope ad; and the Germanbey, that is, “by,” “near to,” a meaning supported by the passage in Herodotus, to which he refers, as well as by those from Mark himself, which are given above, from Schleusner’s references under this word, (definition 7.) Scott, in order to reconcile the difficulties which he saw in the common version, has, in his marginal references, suggested the meaning of “over against,” a rendering, which undoubtedly expresses correctly the relations of objects in this place, and one, perhaps, not wholly inconsistent with Schleusner’s7thdefinition, which is in Latinante, or “before;” since what wasbeforeBethsaida, as one looked from that place across the river, was certainlyopposite tothat city. I had thought of this meaning as a desirable one in this passage, but had rejected it, before I saw it in Scott, for the reason, that I could not find this exact meaning in any lexicon, nor was there any other passage in Greek, in which this could be distinctly recognized as the proper one. The propriety of the term, however, is also noticed, in the note on this passage in the great French Bible, with commentaries, harmonies,&c.(Sainte Bible en Latin et Francois avec des notes,&c.Vol. xiv.p.263, note,) where it is expressed by “l’autre cote du lac,vis-a-visBethsaide: c. a. d. sur le bord occidentalopposéa la ville Bethsaide que etait sur le bord oriental,” a meaning undoubtedly geographically correct, but not grammatically exact, and I therefore prefer to take “near,” as the sense which both reconciles the geographical difficulties, and accords with the established principles of lexicography.After all, the sense “to” is not needed in this passage, to direct the action of the verb of motion (προαγειν,proagein, “go before,”) to its proper object, since that is previously done by the former preposition and substantive,εις το περαν, (eis to peran.) That is, when we read “Jesus constrained his disciples to go before him,” and the question arises in regard to the object towards which the action is directed, “Whither did he constrain them to go before him?” the answer is in the words immediately succeeding,εις το περαν, “to the other side,” and in these words the action is complete; but the mere general direction, “to the other side,” was too vague of itself, and required some limitation to avoid error; for the place to which they commonly directed their course westward, over the lake, was Capernaum, the home of Jesus, and thither they might on this occasion be naturally expected to go, as we should have concludedthey did, if nothing farther was said; therefore, to fix the point of their destination, we are told, in answer to the query, “To what part of the western shore were they directed to go?” “To that part which wasnearoropposite toBethsaida.” The objection which may arise, that a place on the western side could not be very near to Bethsaida on the east, is answered by the fact that this city was separated from the western shore, not by the whole breadth of the lake, but simply by the little stream of Jordan, here not more than twenty yards wide, so that a place on the opposite side might still be very near the city. And this is what shows the topographical justness of the term, “over against,” given by Scott, and the French commentator, since a place not directly across or opposite, but down the western shore, in a south-westerly direction, as Capernaum was, would not bevery nearBethsaida, nor much less than five miles off. Thus is shown a beautiful mutual illustration of the literal and the liberal translations of the word.Macknight ably answers another argument, which has been offered to defend the location of Bethsaida on the western shore, founded on Johnvi.23. “There came other boats from Tiberias, nigh unto the place where they did eat bread,” as if Tiberias had been near the desert of Bethsaida, and consequently near Bethsaida itself. “But,” as Macknight remarks, “the original, rightly pointed, imports only, that boats from Tiberias came into some creek or bay, nigh unto the place where they did eat bread.” Besides, it should be remembered that the object of those who came in the boats, was to find Jesus, whom they expected to find “nigh the place where they ate bread,” as the context shows; so that these words refer to their destination, and not to the place from which they came. Tiberias was down the lake, at the south-western corner of it, and I know of no geographer who has put Bethsaida more than half way down, even on the western shore. The difference, therefore, between the distance to Bethsaida on the west and to Bethsaida on the east, could not be at most above a mile or two, a matter not to be appreciated in a voyage of sixteen miles, from Tiberias, which cannot be said to be near Bethsaida, in any position of the latter that has ever been thought of. This objection, of course, is not offered at all, by those who suppose two Bethsaidas mentioned in the gospels, and grant that the passage in Lukeix.10, refers to the eastern one, where they suppose the place of eating bread to have been; but others, who have imagined only one Bethsaida, and that on the western side, have proposed this argument; and to such the reply is directed.For all these reasons, topographical, historical and grammatical, the conclusion of the whole matter is——that there was butoneBethsaida, the same place being meant by that name in all passages in the gospels and in Josephus——that this place stood within the verge of Lower Gaulanitis, on the bank of the Jordan, just where it passes into the lake——that it was in the dominions of Philip the tetrarch, at the time when it is mentioned in the gospels, and afterwards was included in the kingdom of Agrippa——that its original Hebrew name, (fromביתbeth, “house,” andצדה,tsedah, “hunting, or fishing,” “a house of fishing,” no doubt so called from the common pursuit of its inhabitants,) was changed by Philip intoJulias, by which name it was known to Greeks and Romans.By this view, we avoid the undesirable notion, that there are two totally different places mentioned in two succeeding chapters of the same gospel, without a word of explanation to inform us of the difference, as is usual in cases of local synonyms in the New Testament; and that Josephus describes a place of this name, without the slightest hint of the remarkable fact, that there was another place of the same name, not half a mile off, directly across the Jordan, in full view of it.The discussion of the point has been necessarily protracted to a somewhat tedious length; but if fewer words would have expressed the truth and the reasons for it, it should have been briefer; and probably there is no reader who has endeavored to satisfy himself on the position of Bethsaida, in his own biblical studies, that will not feel some gratitude for what light this note may give, on a point where all common aids and authorities are in such monstrous confusion.For the various opinions and statements on this difficult point, see Schleusner’s, Bretschneider’s and Wahl’s Lexicons, Lightfoot’s Chorographic century and decade, Wetstein’s New Testament commentary on Matthewiv.12, Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, Fritzsche, Macknight,&c.On the passages where the name occurs, also the French Commentary above quoted,——more especially inVol. III.Remarques sur le carte geographiquesection 7,p.357. Paulus’s “commentar ueber das neue Testament,”2dedition,Vol. II.pp.336–342.Topographische Erlaeuterungen.Lake Gennesaret.——This body of water, bearing in the gospels the various namesof “the sea of Tiberias,” and “the sea of Galilee,” as well as “the lake of Gennesaret,” is formed like one or two other smaller ones north of it, by a widening of the Jordan, which flows in at the northern end, and passing through the middle, goes out at the southern end. On the western side, it was bounded by Galilee proper, and on the east was the lower division of that portion of Iturea, which was called Gaulanitis by the Greeks and Romans, from the ancient city of Golan, (Deuteronomyiv.43; Joshuaxx.8,&c.) which stood within its limits. Pliny (bookI.chapter 15,) well describes the situation and character of the lake. “Where the shape of the valley first allows it, the Jordan pours itself into a lake which is most commonly called Genesara, sixteen (Roman) miles long, and six broad. It is surrounded by pleasant towns; on the east, it has Julias (Bethsaida) and Hippus; on the south, Tarichea, by which name some call the lake also; on the west, Tiberias with its warm springs.” Josephus also gives a very clear and ample description. (Jewish War, book 3, chapter 9, section 7.) “Lake Gennesar takes its name from the country adjoining it. It is forty furlongs (about five or six miles) in width, and one hundred and forty (seventeen or eighteen miles) in length; yet the water is sweet, and very desirable to drink; for it has its fountain clear from swampy thickness, and is therefore quite pure, being bounded on all sides by a beach, and a sandy shore. It is moreover of a pleasant temperature to drink, being warmer than that of a river or a spring, on the one hand, but colder than that which stands always expanded over a lake. In coldness, indeed, it is not inferior to snow, when it has been exposed to the air all night, as is the custom with the people of that region. In it there are some kinds of fish, different both in appearance and taste from those in other places. The Jordan cuts through the middle of it.” He then gives a description of the course of the Jordan, ending with the remark quoted in the former note, that it enters the lake at the city of Julias. He then describes, in glowing terms, the richness and beauty of the country around, from which the lake takes its name,——a description too long to be given here; but the studious reader may find it in section eighth of the book and chapter above referred to. The Rabbinical writers too, often refer to the pre-eminent beauty and fertility of this delightful region, as is shown in several passages quoted by Lightfoot in his Centuria Chorographica, chapter 79. The derivation of the name there given from the Rabbins, isגני סרים,ginne sarim, “the gardens of the princes.” Thence the name genne-sar. They say it was within the lands of the tribe of Naphtali; it must therefore have been on the western side of the lake, which appears also from the fact that it was near Tiberias, as we are told on the same authority. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament under this name, but the Rabbins assure us that the place calledCinnereth, in Joshuaxx.35; Chinneroth inxi.2, is the same; and this lake is mentioned inxiii.27, under the name of “the sea of Chinnereth,”——“the sea of Chinneroth,” inxii.3,&c.The best description of the scenery, and present aspect of the lake, which I can find, is the following from Conder’s Modern Traveler,Vol. 1.(Palestine) a work made up with great care from the observations of a great number of intelligent travelers.“The mountains on the east of Lake Tiberias, come close to its shore, and the country on that side has not a very agreeable aspect; on the west, it has the plain of Tiberias, the high ground of the plain of Hutin, or Hottein, the plain of Gennesaret, and the foot of those hills by which you ascend to the high mountain of Saphet. To the north and south it has a plain country, or valley. There is a current throughout the whole breadth of the lake, even to the shore; and the passage of the Jordan through it, is discernible by the smoothness of the surface in that part. Various travelers have given a very different account of its general aspect. According to Captain Mangles, the land about it has no striking features, and the scenery is altogether devoid of character. ‘It appeared,’ he says, ‘to particular disadvantage to us, after those beautiful lakes we had seen in Switzerland; but it becomes a very interesting object, when you consider the frequent allusions to it in the gospel narrative.’Dr.Clarke, on the contrary, speaks of the uncommon grandeur of this memorable scenery. ‘The lake of Gennesaret,’ he says, ‘is surrounded by objects well calculated to highten the solemn impression,’ made by such recollections, and ‘affords one of the most striking prospects in the Holy Land. Speaking of it comparatively, it may be described as longer and finer than any of our Cumberland and Westmoreland lakes, although perhaps inferior to Loch Lomond. It does not possess the vastness of the Lake of Geneva, although it much resembles it in certain points of view. In picturesque beauty, it comes nearest to the Lake of Locarno, in Italy, although it is destitute of any thing similar to the islands by which that majestic piece of water is adorned. It is inferior in magnitude, and in the hight of its surrounding mountains,to the Lake Asphaltites.’Mr.Buckingham may perhaps be considered as having given the most accurate account, and one which reconciles, in some degree, the different statements above cited, when, speaking of the lake as seen from Tel Hoom, he says, ‘that its appearance is grand, but that the barren aspect of the mountains on each side, and the total absence of wood, give a cast of dulness to the picture; this is increased to melancholy, by the dead calm of its waters, and the silence which reigns throughout its whole extent, where not a boat or vessel of any kind is to be found.’“Among the pebbles on the shore,Dr.Clarke found pieces of a porous rock, resemblingtoad-stone, its cavities filled with zeolite. Native gold is said to have been found here formerly. ‘We noticed,’ he says, ‘an appearance of this kind; but, on account of its trivial nature, neglected to pay proper attention to it. The water was as clear as the purest crystal; sweet, cool, and most refreshing. Swimming to a considerable distance from the shore, we found it so limpid that we could discern the bottom covered with shining pebbles. Among these stones was a beautiful, but very diminutive, kind of shell; a nondescript species ofBuccinum, which we have calledBuccinum Galilæum. We amused ourselves by diving for specimens; and the very circumstance of discerning such small objects beneath the surface, may prove the high transparency of the water.’ The situation of the lake, lying as it were in a deep basin between the hills which enclose it on all sides, excepting only the narrow entrance and outlets of the Jordan, at either end, protects its waters from long-continued tempests. Its surface is in general as smooth as that of the Dead Sea; but the same local features render it occasionally subject to whirlwinds, squalls, and sudden gusts from the mountains, of short duration, especially when the strong current formed by the Jordan, is opposed by a wind of this description, from the south-east; sweeping from the mountains with the force of a hurricane, it may easily be conceived that a boisterous sea must be instantly raised, which the small vessels of the country would be unable to resist. A storm of this description is plainly denoted by the language of the evangelist, in recounting one of our Lord’s miracles. ‘Therecame downa storm of wind on the lake, and they were filled with water, and were in jeopardy.... Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water; and they ceased, and there was a calm.’ (Lukeviii.23, 24.)”The question of Peter’s being the oldest son of his father has been already alluded to, and decided by the most ancient authority, in favor of the opinion, that he was younger than Andrew. There surely is nothing unparalleled or remarkable in the fact, that the younger brother should so transcend the elder in ability and eminence; since Scripture history furnishes us with similar instances in Jacob, Judah and Joseph, Moses, David, and many others throughout the history of the Jews, although that nation generally regarded the rights of primogeniture with high reverence and respect.HIS INTRODUCTION TO JESUS.The earliest passage in the life of Peter, of which any record can be found, is given in the first chapter of John’s Gospel. In this, it appears that Peter and Andrew were at Bethabara, a place on the eastern bank of the Jordan, more than twenty miles south of their home at Bethsaida, and that they had probably left their business for a time, and gone thither, for the sake of hearing and seeing John the Baptist, who was then preaching at that place, and baptizing the penitent in the Jordan. This great forerunner of the Messiah, had already, by his strange habits of life, by hisfiery eloquence, by his violent and fearless zeal in denouncing the spirit of the times, attracted the attention of the people, of all classes, in various and distant parts of Palestine; and not merely of the vulgar and unenlightened portion of society, who are so much more susceptible to false impressions in such cases, but even of the well taught followers of the two great learned sects of the Jewish faith, whose members flocked to hear his bold and bitter condemnation of their precepts and practices. So widely had his fame spread, and so important were the results of his doctrine considered, that a deputation of priests and Levites was sent to him, from Jerusalem, (probably from the Sanhedrim, or grand civil and religious council,) to inquire into his character and pretensions. No doubt a particular interest was felt in this inquiry, from the fact that there was a general expectation abroad at that time, that the long-desired restorer of Israel was soon to appear; or, as expressed by Luke, there were many “who waited for the consolation of Israel,” and “who in Jerusalem looked for redemption.” Luke also expressly tells us, that the expectations of the multitude were strongly excited, and that all men mused in their hearts whether he were the Christ or not. In the midst of this general notion, so flattering, and so tempting to an ambitious man, John vindicates his honesty and sincerity, by distinctly declaring to the multitude, as well as to the deputation, that he wasnotthe Christ, and claimed for himself only the comparatively humble name and honors of the preparer of the way for the true king of Israel. This distinct disavowal, accompanied by the solemn declaration, that the true Messiah stood at that moment among them, though unknown in his real character, must have aggravated public curiosity to the highest pitch, and caused the people to await, with the most intense anxiety, the nomination of this mysterious king, which John was expected to make. Need we wonder, then, at the alacrity and determination with which the two disciples of John, who heard this announcement, followed the footsteps of Jesus, with the object of finding the dwelling place of the Messiah, or at the deep reverence with which they accosted him, giving him at once the highest term of honor which a Jew could confer on the wise and good,——“Rabbi,” or master? Nor is it surprising that Andrew, after the first day’s conversation with Jesus, should instantly seek out his beloved and zealous brother, and tell him the joyful and exciting news, that they had found the Messiah. The mention of this fact was enough forSimon, and he suffered himself to be brought at once to Jesus. The salutation with which the Redeemer greeted the man who was to be the leader of his consecrated host, was strikingly prophetical and full of meaning. His first words were the annunciation of his individual and family name, (no miracle, but an allusion to the hidden meaning of his name,) and the application of a new one, by which he was afterwards to be distinguished from the many who bore his common name. All these names have a deeply curious and interesting meaning. Translating them all from their original Aramaic forms, the salutation will be, “Thou art ahearer, theson of divine grace——thou shalt be called arock.” The first of these names (hearer) was a common title in use among the Jews, to distinguish those who had just offered themselves to the learned, as desiring wisdom in the law; and the second was applied to those who, having past the first probationary stage of instruction, were ranked as the approved and improving disciples of the law, under the hopeful title of the “sons of divine grace.” The third, which became afterwards the distinctive individual name of this apostle, was given, no doubt, in reference to the peculiar excellences of his natural genius, which seems to be thereby characterized as firm, unimpressible by difficulty, and affording fit materials for the foundation of a mighty and lasting superstructure.The name Simon,שמונwas a common abridgment of Simeon,שמעונwhich means a hearer, and was a term applied technically as here mentioned. (For proofs and illustrations, see Poole’s Synopsis and Lightfoot.) The technical meaning of the name Jonah, given in the text, is that given by Grotius and Drusius, but Lightfoot rejects this interpretation, because the name Jonah is not fairly derived fromיוחנא(which is the name corresponding to John,) but is the same with that of the old prophet so named, and he is probably right in therefore rejecting this whimsical etymology and definition.With this important event of the introduction of Simon to Jesus, and the application of his new and characteristic name, the life of Peter, as a follower of Christ, may be fairly said to have begun; and from this arises a simple division of the subject, into the two great natural portions of his life;first, in his state of pupilage and instruction under the prayerful, personal care of his devoted Master, during his earthly stay; andsecond, of his labors in the cause of his murdered and risen Lord, as his preacher and successor. These two portions of his life may be properly denominated hisdiscipleshipand hisapostleship; or perhaps still better, Peter thelearner, and Peter theteacher.THE FORDS OF THE JORDAN.
HIS APOSTOLIC RANK.Theorder in which the names of the apostles are arranged in this book, can make little difference in the interest which their history will excite in the reader’s mind, nor can such an arrangement, of itself, do much to affect his opinion of their comparative merits; yet to their biographer, it becomes a matter of some importance, as well as interest, to show not only authority, but reason, for the order in which he ranks them.Sufficientauthorityfor placing Simon Cephas first, is found in the three lists of the apostles given respectively by Matthew, Mark and Luke, which, though differing as to their arrangement in some particulars, entirely agree in giving to this apostle the precedence of all. But it would by no means become the earnest and faithful searcher into sacred history, to rest satisfied with a bare reference to the unerring word, on a point of so much interest. So far from it, the strictest reverence for the sacred record both allows and urges the inquiry, as to what were the circumstances of Peter’s life and character, that led the three evangelists thus unanimously and decidedly to place him at the head of the sacred band, on all whom, in common, rested the commissioned power of doing the marvelous works of Jesus, and spreading his gospel in all the world. Was this preference the result of mere incidental circumstances, such as age, prior calling,&c.? Or, does it mark a pre-eminence of character or qualifications, entitling him to lead and rule the apostolic company in the name of Christ, as the commissioned chief of the faithful?Thereasonof this preference, as far as connected with his character, will of course be best shown in the incidents of his life and conduct, as detailed in this narrative. But even here muchmay be brought forward to throw light on the ground of Peter’s rank, as first of the apostles. It is no more than fair to remark, however, that some points of this inquiry have been very deeply, and at the same time, very unnecessarily involved in the disputes between Protestants and Papists, respecting the original supremacy of the church of Rome, as supposed to have been founded or ruled by this chief apostle.Of the many suppositions which might be made to account for Peter’s priority of station on the apostolic list, it may be enough to notice the following: That he was by birth the oldest of the twelve. This assertion, however boldly made by some, rests entirely on conjecture, as we have no certain information on this point, either from the New Testament or any ancient writer of indisputable credit. Those of the early Christian writers who allude to this matter, are quite contradictory in their statements, some supposing Peter to be the oldest of the apostles, and some supposing Andrew to be older than his brother;——a discrepancy that may well entitle us to conclude that they had no certain information about the matter. The weight of testimony, however, seems rather against the assertion that Peter was the oldest, inasmuch as the earliest writer who alludes at all to the subject, very decidedly pronounces Andrew to have been the older brother. Enough, then, is known, to prevent our relying on his seniority as the true ground of his precedence. Still this point must be considered as entirely doubtful; so doubtful that it cannot be considered as proof, in the argument.
HIS APOSTOLIC RANK.
Theorder in which the names of the apostles are arranged in this book, can make little difference in the interest which their history will excite in the reader’s mind, nor can such an arrangement, of itself, do much to affect his opinion of their comparative merits; yet to their biographer, it becomes a matter of some importance, as well as interest, to show not only authority, but reason, for the order in which he ranks them.
Sufficientauthorityfor placing Simon Cephas first, is found in the three lists of the apostles given respectively by Matthew, Mark and Luke, which, though differing as to their arrangement in some particulars, entirely agree in giving to this apostle the precedence of all. But it would by no means become the earnest and faithful searcher into sacred history, to rest satisfied with a bare reference to the unerring word, on a point of so much interest. So far from it, the strictest reverence for the sacred record both allows and urges the inquiry, as to what were the circumstances of Peter’s life and character, that led the three evangelists thus unanimously and decidedly to place him at the head of the sacred band, on all whom, in common, rested the commissioned power of doing the marvelous works of Jesus, and spreading his gospel in all the world. Was this preference the result of mere incidental circumstances, such as age, prior calling,&c.? Or, does it mark a pre-eminence of character or qualifications, entitling him to lead and rule the apostolic company in the name of Christ, as the commissioned chief of the faithful?
Thereasonof this preference, as far as connected with his character, will of course be best shown in the incidents of his life and conduct, as detailed in this narrative. But even here muchmay be brought forward to throw light on the ground of Peter’s rank, as first of the apostles. It is no more than fair to remark, however, that some points of this inquiry have been very deeply, and at the same time, very unnecessarily involved in the disputes between Protestants and Papists, respecting the original supremacy of the church of Rome, as supposed to have been founded or ruled by this chief apostle.
Of the many suppositions which might be made to account for Peter’s priority of station on the apostolic list, it may be enough to notice the following: That he was by birth the oldest of the twelve. This assertion, however boldly made by some, rests entirely on conjecture, as we have no certain information on this point, either from the New Testament or any ancient writer of indisputable credit. Those of the early Christian writers who allude to this matter, are quite contradictory in their statements, some supposing Peter to be the oldest of the apostles, and some supposing Andrew to be older than his brother;——a discrepancy that may well entitle us to conclude that they had no certain information about the matter. The weight of testimony, however, seems rather against the assertion that Peter was the oldest, inasmuch as the earliest writer who alludes at all to the subject, very decidedly pronounces Andrew to have been the older brother. Enough, then, is known, to prevent our relying on his seniority as the true ground of his precedence. Still this point must be considered as entirely doubtful; so doubtful that it cannot be considered as proof, in the argument.
The oldest Christian writer, who refers in any way to the comparative age of Peter, is Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, as early as A. D. 368. In his great work against heresies, (bookii.vol. 1, heresy 51,) in narrating the call of Andrew and Peter, he says, “The meeting (with Jesus) happened first to Andrew, Peter being less than him in age,” (μικροτερου οντος τω χρονῳ της ἡλικιας.) “But afterwards, when their complete forsaking of all earthly things is mentioned, Peter takes precedence, since God, who sees the turn of all characters, and knows who is fit for the highest places, chose Peter as the chief leader (αρχηγον) of his disciples.” This, certainly, is a very distinct assertion of Peter’s juniority, and is plainly meant to give the idea that Peter’s high rank among the apostles was due to a superiority of talent, which put him above those who were older.
In favor of the assertion that Peter was older than Andrew, the earliest authority that has ever been cited, is John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, about A. D. 400. This Father, in his homily on Matthewxvii.27, (Homily 59,) says that Peter was a “first-born son,” (πρωτοτοκος.) In this passage, he is speaking of the tribute paid by Jesus and Peter for the expenses of the temple. He supposes that this tribute was the redemption-money due from the first-born sons of the Jews, for their exemption from the duties of the priesthood. But the account of this tax, in Numbersiii.44–51, shows that this was a tax offiveshekels apiece, while that spoken of by Matthew, is called thedidrachmon, a Greek coin equivalent to ahalf-shekel. Now the half-shekel tax was that paid byeveryJew above the age of twenty years, for the expenses of the temple service, as is fully described in Exodusxxx.12–16;xxxviii.26. Josephus also mentions this half-shekel tax, as due fromeveryJew,for the service of the temple. (See Hammond on Matthewxvii.24.) Chrysostom is therefore wholly in the wrong, about the nature of the tax paid by Jesus and Peter; (verse 27, “give it for me and thee,”) and the reason which he gives for the payment, (namely, that they were both first-born sons,) being disproved, his belief of Peter’s seniority is shown to be based on an error, and therefore entitled to no credit whatever; more particularly, when opposed to the older authority of Epiphanius.
Lardner, in support of the opinion that Peter was the oldest, quotes also Cassian and Bede; but it is most manifest that a bare assertion of two writers, who lived, one of them 424, and the other 700 years after Christ,——an assertion unsupported by any proof whatever, cannot be received as evidence in the case. The most naturalconjectureof any one who was accounting for the eminence of Peter, would be that he was older than the brother of whom he takes precedence so uniformly; and it is no more than just to conclude, therefore, that the ground of this notion was but a mere guess. But in the case of Epiphanius, besides the respect due to the early authority, it is important to observe, that he could have no motive for inventing the notion of Andrew’s seniority, since the uniform prominence of Peter would most naturally suggest the idea thathewas the oldest. It is fair to conclude, then, that an opinion, so unlikely to be adopted without special proof, must have had the authority of uniform early tradition; for Epiphanius mentions it as if it were a universally admitted fact; nor does he seem to me to have invented the notion of Andrew’s seniority, to account for his being first known to Jesus, though he mentions these two circumstances in their natural connection. Yet Lampius, in his notes on Johni.supposing that Epiphanius arranged the facts on the principle “post hoc, ergo, propter hoc,” has rejected this Father’s declaration of Andrew’s seniority, as a mere invention, to account for this apostle’s prior acquaintance with Jesus. The reader may judge between them.
Lardner, moreover, informs us that Jerome maintains the opinion, that Peter was preferred before the other apostles on account of his age. But a reference to the original passage, shows that the comparison was only between Peter and John, and not between Peter and the rest of the apostles. Speaking of Peter as the constituted head of the church, he says that was done to avoid dissensions, (ut schismatis tollatur occasio.) The question might then arise, why was not John chosen first, being so pure and free from connections that might interfere with apostolic duties? (Cur non Johannes electus est virgo? Aetati delatum est, quia Petrusseniorerat; ne adhuc adolescens ac pene puer progressae aetatis hominibus praeferretur.) “It was out of regard to age, because Peter wasolder(than John;) nor could one who was yet immature, and little more than a boy, be preferred to a man of mature age.” The passage evidently does not touch the question of Peter’s being the oldest of all, nor does it contradict, in any way, the opinion that Andrew was older, as all which Jerome says is, merely, that Peter was older than John,——an opinion unquestionably accordant with the general voice of all ancient Christian tradition.
The character of Epiphanius, however, it must be acknowledged, is so low for judgment and accuracy, that his word is not of itself sufficient to establish any very doubtful fact, as certain. Yet in this case, there is no temptation to pervert facts on a point of so little interest or importance, and one on which no prejudice could govern his decision. We may therefore give him, in this matter, about all the credit due to his antiquity. Still, there is much more satisfactory proof of Peter’s not being the oldest apostle, founded on various circumstances of apostolic history, which will be referred to in their places.
Nor can priority of calling be offered as the reason of this apparent superiority; for the minute record given by the evangelist John, makes it undeniable that Andrew became acquainted with Jesus before Peter, and that the eminent disciple was afterwards first made known to Jesus, by means of his less highly honored brother.The only reasonable supposition left, then, is, that there was an intentional preference of Simon Cephas, on the score of eminencefor genius, zeal, knowledge, prudence, or some other quality which fitted him for taking the lead of the chief ministers of the Messiah. The word “first,” which accompanies his name in Matthew’s list, certainly appears, in the view of some, to have some force above the mere tautological expression of a fact so very self-evident from the collocation, as that he was first on the list. The Bible shows not an instance of a list begun in that way, with this emphatic word so vainly and unmeaningly applied. The analogies of expression in all languages, ancient and modern, would be very apt to lead a common reader to think that the numeral adjective thus prefixed, was meant to give the idea that Simon Peter was putfirstfor some better reason than mere accident. Any person, in giving a list of twelve eminent men, all devoted to a common pursuit, and laboring in one great cause, whose progress he was attempting to record, would, in arranging them, if he disregarded the circumstances of seniority,&c., very naturally give them place according to their importance in reference to the great subject before him. If, as in the present case, three different persons should, in the course of such a work, make out such a list, an individual difference of opinion about a matter of mere personal preference, like this, might produce variations in the minor particulars; but where all three united in giving to one and the same person, the first and most honorable place, the ordinary presumption would unavoidably be, that the prior rank of the person thus distinguished, was considered, by them at least, at the time when they wrote, as decidedly and indisputably established. The determination of a point so trifling being without any influence on matters of faith and doctrine, each evangelist might, without detriment to the sanctity and authority of the record which he bears, be left to follow his own private opinion of the most proper principle of arrangement to be followed in enumerating the apostles. Thus, while it is noticeable that the whole twelve were disposed in six pairs by each of the evangelists, yet the order and succession of these is somewhat changed, by different circumstances directing the choice of each writer. Matthew modestly puts himself after Thomas, with whom he seems by all the gospel lists, to have some close connection; but Mark and Luke combine to give Matthew the precedence, and invert the order in which, through unobtrusiveness, he had, as it would seem, robbed true merit of its due superiority. And yet these points of precedence were so little looked to, that in the first chapterof Acts, Luke makes a new arrangement of these names, advancing Thomas to the precedency, not only of Matthew, but of Bartholomew, who, in all other places where their names are given, is mentioned before him. So also Matthew prefers to mention the brothers together, and gives Andrew a place immediately after Peter, although, in so many places after, he speaks of Peter, James and John together, as most highly distinguished by Christ, and favored by opportunities of beholding him and his works, on occasions when other eyes were shut out. Mark, on the contrary, gives these names with more strict reference to distinction of rank, and mentions the favored trio together, first of all, making the affinities of birth of less consequence than the share of favor enjoyed by each with the Messiah. Luke, in his gospel, follows Matthew’s arrangement of the brothers, but in the first chapter of Acts puts the three great apostles first, separating Andrew from his brother, and mentioning him after the sons of Zebedee. These changes of arrangement, while they show of how little vital importance the order of names was considered, yet, by the uniform preservation of Peter in the first rank, prove that the exalted pre-eminence of Peter was so universally known and acknowledged, that whatever difference of opinion writers might entertain respecting more obscure persons,——as to him, no inversion of order could be permitted.How far Peter was by this pre-eminence endowed with any supremacy over the other apostles, may of course be best shown in those places of his history, which appear either to maintain or question this position.That Simon Cephas, or Peter, then, was the first or chief of the apostles, appears from the uniform precedence with which his name is honored on all occasions in the Scriptures, where the order in which names are mentioned could be made to depend on rank,——by the universal testimony of the Fathers, and by the general impressions entertained on this point throughout the Christian world, in all ages since his time.HIS BIRTH.From two separate passages in the gospels, we learn that the name of the father of Simon Peter was Jonah, but beyond this we have no direct information as to his family. From the terms in which Peter is frequently mentioned along with the other apostles, we infer, however, that he must have been from the lowest order of society, which also appears from the business to whichhe devoted his life, before he received the summons that sent him forth to the world, on a far higher errand. Of such a humble family, he was born at Bethsaida, in Galilee, on or near the shore of the sea of Galilee, otherwise called lake Tiberias, or Gennesaret. Upon this lake he seems to have followed his laborious and dangerous livelihood, which very probably, in accordance with the hereditary succession of trades, common among the Jews, was the occupation of his father and ancestors before him. Of the time of his birth no certain information can be had, as those who were able to inform us, were not disposed to set so high a value upon ages and dates, as the writers and readers of later times. The most reasonable conjecture as to his age, is, that he was about the same age with Jesus Christ; which rests on the circumstances of his being married at the period when he was first called by Christ,——his being made the object of such high confidence and honor by his Master, and the eminent standing which he seems to have maintained, from the first, among the apostles. Still there is nothing in all these circumstances, that is irreconcilable with the supposition that he was younger than Christ; and if any reader prefers to suppose the period of his birth so much later, there is no important point in his history or character that will be affected by such a change of dates.
Nor can priority of calling be offered as the reason of this apparent superiority; for the minute record given by the evangelist John, makes it undeniable that Andrew became acquainted with Jesus before Peter, and that the eminent disciple was afterwards first made known to Jesus, by means of his less highly honored brother.
The only reasonable supposition left, then, is, that there was an intentional preference of Simon Cephas, on the score of eminencefor genius, zeal, knowledge, prudence, or some other quality which fitted him for taking the lead of the chief ministers of the Messiah. The word “first,” which accompanies his name in Matthew’s list, certainly appears, in the view of some, to have some force above the mere tautological expression of a fact so very self-evident from the collocation, as that he was first on the list. The Bible shows not an instance of a list begun in that way, with this emphatic word so vainly and unmeaningly applied. The analogies of expression in all languages, ancient and modern, would be very apt to lead a common reader to think that the numeral adjective thus prefixed, was meant to give the idea that Simon Peter was putfirstfor some better reason than mere accident. Any person, in giving a list of twelve eminent men, all devoted to a common pursuit, and laboring in one great cause, whose progress he was attempting to record, would, in arranging them, if he disregarded the circumstances of seniority,&c., very naturally give them place according to their importance in reference to the great subject before him. If, as in the present case, three different persons should, in the course of such a work, make out such a list, an individual difference of opinion about a matter of mere personal preference, like this, might produce variations in the minor particulars; but where all three united in giving to one and the same person, the first and most honorable place, the ordinary presumption would unavoidably be, that the prior rank of the person thus distinguished, was considered, by them at least, at the time when they wrote, as decidedly and indisputably established. The determination of a point so trifling being without any influence on matters of faith and doctrine, each evangelist might, without detriment to the sanctity and authority of the record which he bears, be left to follow his own private opinion of the most proper principle of arrangement to be followed in enumerating the apostles. Thus, while it is noticeable that the whole twelve were disposed in six pairs by each of the evangelists, yet the order and succession of these is somewhat changed, by different circumstances directing the choice of each writer. Matthew modestly puts himself after Thomas, with whom he seems by all the gospel lists, to have some close connection; but Mark and Luke combine to give Matthew the precedence, and invert the order in which, through unobtrusiveness, he had, as it would seem, robbed true merit of its due superiority. And yet these points of precedence were so little looked to, that in the first chapterof Acts, Luke makes a new arrangement of these names, advancing Thomas to the precedency, not only of Matthew, but of Bartholomew, who, in all other places where their names are given, is mentioned before him. So also Matthew prefers to mention the brothers together, and gives Andrew a place immediately after Peter, although, in so many places after, he speaks of Peter, James and John together, as most highly distinguished by Christ, and favored by opportunities of beholding him and his works, on occasions when other eyes were shut out. Mark, on the contrary, gives these names with more strict reference to distinction of rank, and mentions the favored trio together, first of all, making the affinities of birth of less consequence than the share of favor enjoyed by each with the Messiah. Luke, in his gospel, follows Matthew’s arrangement of the brothers, but in the first chapter of Acts puts the three great apostles first, separating Andrew from his brother, and mentioning him after the sons of Zebedee. These changes of arrangement, while they show of how little vital importance the order of names was considered, yet, by the uniform preservation of Peter in the first rank, prove that the exalted pre-eminence of Peter was so universally known and acknowledged, that whatever difference of opinion writers might entertain respecting more obscure persons,——as to him, no inversion of order could be permitted.
How far Peter was by this pre-eminence endowed with any supremacy over the other apostles, may of course be best shown in those places of his history, which appear either to maintain or question this position.
That Simon Cephas, or Peter, then, was the first or chief of the apostles, appears from the uniform precedence with which his name is honored on all occasions in the Scriptures, where the order in which names are mentioned could be made to depend on rank,——by the universal testimony of the Fathers, and by the general impressions entertained on this point throughout the Christian world, in all ages since his time.
HIS BIRTH.
From two separate passages in the gospels, we learn that the name of the father of Simon Peter was Jonah, but beyond this we have no direct information as to his family. From the terms in which Peter is frequently mentioned along with the other apostles, we infer, however, that he must have been from the lowest order of society, which also appears from the business to whichhe devoted his life, before he received the summons that sent him forth to the world, on a far higher errand. Of such a humble family, he was born at Bethsaida, in Galilee, on or near the shore of the sea of Galilee, otherwise called lake Tiberias, or Gennesaret. Upon this lake he seems to have followed his laborious and dangerous livelihood, which very probably, in accordance with the hereditary succession of trades, common among the Jews, was the occupation of his father and ancestors before him. Of the time of his birth no certain information can be had, as those who were able to inform us, were not disposed to set so high a value upon ages and dates, as the writers and readers of later times. The most reasonable conjecture as to his age, is, that he was about the same age with Jesus Christ; which rests on the circumstances of his being married at the period when he was first called by Christ,——his being made the object of such high confidence and honor by his Master, and the eminent standing which he seems to have maintained, from the first, among the apostles. Still there is nothing in all these circumstances, that is irreconcilable with the supposition that he was younger than Christ; and if any reader prefers to suppose the period of his birth so much later, there is no important point in his history or character that will be affected by such a change of dates.
Bethsaida.——The name of this place occurs in several passages of gospel history, as connected with the scenes of the life of Jesus. (Matthewxi.21; Markvi.45,viii.22–26; Lukeix.10,x.13; Johni.45,xii.21.) The name likewise occurs in the writings of Josephus, who describes Bethsaida, and mentions some circumstances of its history. The common impression among the New Testament commentators has been, that the Bethsaida which is so often mentioned in the gospels, was on the western shore of lake Gennesaret, near the other cities which were the scenes of important events in the life of Jesus. Yet Josephus distinctly implies that Bethsaida was situated on the eastern shore of the lake, as he says that it was built by Philip the tetrarch, in Lower Gaulonitis, (Jewish war, bookii.chapter 9, section 1,) which was on the eastern side of the Jordan and the lake, though not inPeraea, as Lightfoot rather hastily assumes; for Peraea, though by its derivation (fromπεραν,peran, “beyond,”) meaning simply “what was beyond” the river, yet was, in the geography of Palestine, applied to only that portion of the country east of Jordan, which extends from Moab on the south, northward, to Pella, on the Jabbok. (Josephus, Jewish war, bookiii.chapter 3, section 3.) Another point in which the account given by Josephus differs from that in the gospels, is, that while Josephus places Bethsaida in Gaulonitis, John (xii.21,) speaks of it distinctly as a city of Galilee, and Peter, as well as others born in Bethsaida, is called a Galilean. These two apparent disagreements have led many eminent writers to conclude that there were on and near the lake, two wholly different places bearing the name of Bethsaida. Schleusner, Bretschneider, Fischer, Pococke, Reland, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, and others, have maintained this opinion with many arguments. But Lightfoot, Cave, Calmet, Baillet, Macknight, Wells, and others, have decided that these differences can be perfectly reconciled, and all the circumstances related in the gospels, made to agree with Josephus’s account of the situation of Bethsaida.
TIBERIAS AND THE SEA OF GALILEE.Marki.16. Johnvi.1.
TIBERIAS AND THE SEA OF GALILEE.Marki.16. Johnvi.1.
TIBERIAS AND THE SEA OF GALILEE.Marki.16. Johnvi.1.
The first passage in which Josephus mentions this place, is in his Jewish Antiquities, bookxviii.chapter 2, section 1. “And he, (Philip) having granted to the villageof Bethsaida, near the lake of Gennesaret, the rank of a city, by increasing its population, and giving it importance in other ways, called it by the name of Julia, the daughter of Caesar,” (Augustus.) In his History of the Jewish War, bookii.chapter 9, section 1, he also alludes to it in a similar connection. Speaking, as in the former passage, of the cities built by Herod and Philip in their tetrarchies, he says, “The latter built Julias, in Lower Gaulanitis.” In the same history, bookiii.chapter 9, section 7, describing the course of the Jordan, he alludes to this city. “Passing on (from lake Semechonitis,) one hundred and twenty furlongs farther,tothe city Julias, it flows through the middle of lake Gennesar.” In this passage I translate the prepositionμετα(meta,) by the English “to,” though Hudson expresses it in Latin by “post,” and Macknight by the English “behind.” Lightfoot very freely renders it “ante,” but with all these great authorities against me, I have the consolation of finding my translation supported by the antique English version of the quaint Thomas Lodge, who distinctly expresses the preposition in this passage by “unto.” This translation of the word is in strict accordance with the rule that this Greek preposition, when it comes before the accusative after a verb of motion, has the force of “to,” or “against.” (See Jones’s Lexicon,sub voc.μετα; also Hederici Lexicon.) But in reference toplaces, it never has the meaning of “behind,” given to it by Macknight, nor of “post,” in Latin, as in Hudson’s translation, still less of “ante,” as Lightfoot very queerly expresses it. The passage, then, simply means that the Jordan, after passing out of lake Semechonitis, flows one hundred and twenty furlongstothe city of Julias or Bethsaida, (notbehindit, norbeforeit,) and there enters lake Gennesar, the whole expressing as clearly as may be, that Julias stood on the river just where it widens into the lake. That Julias stood on the Jordan, and not on the lake, though near it, is made further manifest, by a remark made by Josephus, in his memoirs of his own life. He, when holding a military command in the region around the lake, during the war against the Romans, on one occasion, sent against the enemy a detachment of soldiers, who “encamped near the river Jordan, about a furlong from Julias.” (Life of Josephus, section 72.)
It should be remarked, moreover, that, at the same time when Philip enlarged Bethsaida, in this manner, and gave it the name of Julia, the daughter of Augustus Caesar, his brother Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, with a similar ambition to exalt his own glory, and secure the favor of the imperial family, rebuilt a city in his dominions, named Betharamphtha, to which he gave the nameJuliasalso; but in honor, not of the daughter, but of the wife of Augustus, who bore the family name, Julia, which passed from her to her daughter. This multiplication of namesake towns, has only created new confusion for us; for the learned Lightfoot, in his Chorographic century on Matthew, has unfortunately taken this for the Julias which stood on the Jordan, at its entrance into the lake, and accordingly applies to Julias-Betharamphtha, the last two quotations from Josephus, given above, which I have applied to Julias-Bethsaida. But it would seem as if this most profound Biblical scholar was certainly in the wrong here; since Julias-Betharamphtha must have been built by Herod Antipas within his own dominions, that is, in Galilee proper, or Peraea proper, as already bounded; and Josephus expressly says that this Julias was in Peraea; yet Lightfoot, in his rude little wood-cut map, (Horae Hebraica et Talmudicae in Marci, Decas Chorographica chapterv.) has put this in Gaulanitis, far north of its true place, at the influx of the Jordan into the lake, (“ad ipsissimum influxum Jordanis in lacum Gennesariticum,”) and Julias-Bethsaida, also in Gaulanitis, some miles lower down, at the south-east corner of the lake, a position adopted by no other writer that I know of. This peculiarity in Lightfoot’s views, I have thus stated at length, that those who may refer to hisHoraefor more light, might not suppose a confusion in my statement, which does not exist; for since the Julias-Betharamphtha of Herod could not have been in Gaulanitis, but in Peraea, the Julias at the influx of the Jordan into the lake, must have been the Bethsaida embellished by Philip, tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, (Lukeiii.1,) which included Gaulanitis, Batanea,&c.east of Jordan and the lake, and north of Peraea proper. The substance of Josephus’s information on this point, is, therefore, that Bethsaida stood on the eastern side of the Jordan, just where it enters lake Gennesar, or Gennesaret, (otherwise called lake Tiberias and the sea of Galilee,)——that it stood in the province of Gaulanitis, within the dominions of Philip, son of Herod the Great, and tetrarch of all that portion of Palestine which lies north of Peraea, on the east of Jordan, and the lake, as well as of the region north of Galilee, his tetrarchy forming a sort of crescent,——that this prince, having enlarged and embellished Bethsaida, raised it from a village to the rank of a city, by the nameof Julias, in honor of Julia, daughter of Augustus Caesar. This was done during the reign of Augustus, (Josephus, in Jewish Antiquities booki.chapter 2, section 1,) and of course long before Jesus Christ began his labors, though after his birth, because it was after the death of Herod the Great.
The question now is, whether the Bethsaida mentioned by the evangelists is by them so described as to be in any way inconsistent with the account given by Josephus, of the place to which he gives that name. The first difficulty which has presented itself to the critical commentators, on this point, is the fact, that the Bethsaida of the gospels is declared in them to have been a city of Galilee, (Johnxii.21,) and those who were born and brought up in it are called Galileans, (Markxiv.70, Lukexxii.59, Actsi.7,ii.7.) Yet Josephus expressly tells us, that Bethsaida was in Gaulanitis, which was not in Galilee, as he bounds it, but was beyond its eastern boundary, on the eastern side of the river and lake. (Jewish war, bookxviii.chapter 2, section 1.) This is therefore considered by many, as a diversity between the two accounts, which must make it impossible to apply them both to the same place. But there is no necessity for such a conclusion. The different application of the term Galilee, in the two books, must be noticed, in order to avoid confusion. Josephus is very exact in the use of names of places and regions, defining geographical positions and boundaries with a particularity truly admirable. Thus, in mentioning the political divisions of Palestine, he gives the precise limits of each, and uses their names, not in the loose, popular way, but only in his own accurate sense. But the gospel writers are characterized by no such minute particularity, in the use of names, which they generally apply in the popular, rather than the exact sense. Thus, in this case, they use the term Galilee, in what seems to have been its common meaning in Judea, as a name for all the region north of Samaria and Peraea, on both sides of the Jordan, including, of course, Gaulanitis and all the dominions of Philip. The difference between them and Josephus, on this point, is very satisfactorily shown in another passage. In Actsv.37, Gamaliel, speaking of several persons who had at different times disturbed the peace of the nation, mentions one Judas, theGalilean, as a famous rebel. Now this same person is very particularly described by Josephus, (Jewis Antiquities bookxv.chapter 1, section 1,) in such a manner that there can be no doubt of his identity with the previous description. Yet Josephus calls him distinctly, Judas theGaulanite, and only once Judas theGalilean; showing him to have been from the city of Gamala, in the country east of Jordan and the lake; so that the conclusion is unavoidable, that the term Galilee is used in a much wider sense in the New Testament than in Josephus, being applied indiscriminately to the region on both sides of the lake. The people of southern Palestine called the whole northern section Galilee, and all its inhabitants, Galileans, without attending to the nicer political and geographical distinctions; just as the inhabitants of the southern section of the United States, high and low, call every stranger a Yankee, who is from any part of the country north of Mason and Dixon’s line, though well-informed people perfectly well know, that the classic and not despicable name of Yankee belongs fairly and truly to the ingenious sons of New England alone, who have made their long-established sectional title so synonymous with acuteness and energy, that whenever an enterprising northerner pushes his way southward, he shares in the honors of this gentile appellative. Just in the same vague and careless way, did the Jews apply the name Galilean to all the energetic, active northerners, who made themselves known in Jerusalem, either by their presence or their fame; and thus both Judas of Gaulanitis, and those apostles who were from the eastern side of the river, were called Galileans, as well as those on the west, in Galilee proper. Besides, in the case of Bethsaida, which was immediately on the line between Galilee and Gaulanitis, it was still more natural to refer it to the larger section on the west, with many of whose cities it was closely connected.
Besides, that the Jews considered Galilee as extending beyond Jordan, is most undeniably clear from Isaiahix.1, where the prophet plainly speaks of “Galilee of the nations, as being by the side of the sea, beyond Jordan.” This was the ancient Jewish idea of the country designated by this name, and the idea of limiting it to the west of Jordan, was a mere late term introduced by the Romans, and apparently never used by the Jews of the gospel times, except when speaking of the political divisions of Palestine. The name Gaulanitis, which is the proper term for the province in which Bethsaida was, never occurs in the bible. Kuinoel, Rosenmueller,&c.give a different view, however, of “beyond Jordan,” on Matthewiv.15.
But a still more important difficulty has been suggested, in reference to the identity of the place described by Josephus, with that mentioned in the gospels. This is, thefact that in the gospels it is spoken of in such a connection, as would seem to require its location on the western side. A common, but very idle argument, in favor of this supposition, is, that Bethsaida is mentioned frequently along with Capernaum and other cities of Galilee proper, in such immediate connection as to make it probable that it was on the same side of the river and lake with them. But places separated merely by a river, or at most by a narrow lake, whose greatest breadth was only five miles, could not be considered distant from each other, and would very naturally be spoken of as near neighbors. The most weighty argument, however, rests on a passage in Markvi.45, where it is said that Jesus constrained his disciples to “get into a vessel, to go before him to the other sideuntoBethsaida,” after the five thousand had been fed. Now the parallel passage in Johnvi.17, says that they, following this direction, “went over the sea towards Capernaum,” and that when they reached the shore, “they came into the land of Gennesaret,” both which are understood to be on the western side. But on the other hand, we are distinctly told, by Luke, (ix.10,) that the five thousand were fed in “a desert place, belonging to (or near) the city which is called Bethsaida.” On connecting these two passages, therefore, (in John and Mark,) according to the common version, the disciples sailed from Bethsaida on one side, to Bethsaida on the other, a construction which has been actually adopted by those who maintain the existence of two cities of the same name on different sides of the lake. But what common reader is willing to believe, that in this passage Luke refers to a place totally different from the one meant in all other passages where the name occurs, and more particularly in the very next chapter, (x.13,) where he speaks of the Bethsaida which had been frequented before by Jesus, without a word of explanation to show that it was a different place? But in the expression, “to go before him to the other side,TOBethsaida,” the word “TO” may be shown, by a reference to the Greek, to convey an erroneous idea of the situation of the places. The prepositionπρος, (pros,) may have, not merely the sense ofto, with the idea of motion towards a place, but in some passages even of Mark’s gospel, may be most justly translated “near,” or “before,” (as inii.2, “not evenabout” or “before” the door, and inxi.4, “tiedby” orbefore“the door.”) This is the meaning which seems to be justified by the collocation here, and the meaning in which I am happy to find myself supported by the acute and accurate Wahl, in his Clavis Novi Testamenti underπρος, which he translates in this passage by the Latinjuxta,prope ad; and the Germanbey, that is, “by,” “near to,” a meaning supported by the passage in Herodotus, to which he refers, as well as by those from Mark himself, which are given above, from Schleusner’s references under this word, (definition 7.) Scott, in order to reconcile the difficulties which he saw in the common version, has, in his marginal references, suggested the meaning of “over against,” a rendering, which undoubtedly expresses correctly the relations of objects in this place, and one, perhaps, not wholly inconsistent with Schleusner’s7thdefinition, which is in Latinante, or “before;” since what wasbeforeBethsaida, as one looked from that place across the river, was certainlyopposite tothat city. I had thought of this meaning as a desirable one in this passage, but had rejected it, before I saw it in Scott, for the reason, that I could not find this exact meaning in any lexicon, nor was there any other passage in Greek, in which this could be distinctly recognized as the proper one. The propriety of the term, however, is also noticed, in the note on this passage in the great French Bible, with commentaries, harmonies,&c.(Sainte Bible en Latin et Francois avec des notes,&c.Vol. xiv.p.263, note,) where it is expressed by “l’autre cote du lac,vis-a-visBethsaide: c. a. d. sur le bord occidentalopposéa la ville Bethsaide que etait sur le bord oriental,” a meaning undoubtedly geographically correct, but not grammatically exact, and I therefore prefer to take “near,” as the sense which both reconciles the geographical difficulties, and accords with the established principles of lexicography.
After all, the sense “to” is not needed in this passage, to direct the action of the verb of motion (προαγειν,proagein, “go before,”) to its proper object, since that is previously done by the former preposition and substantive,εις το περαν, (eis to peran.) That is, when we read “Jesus constrained his disciples to go before him,” and the question arises in regard to the object towards which the action is directed, “Whither did he constrain them to go before him?” the answer is in the words immediately succeeding,εις το περαν, “to the other side,” and in these words the action is complete; but the mere general direction, “to the other side,” was too vague of itself, and required some limitation to avoid error; for the place to which they commonly directed their course westward, over the lake, was Capernaum, the home of Jesus, and thither they might on this occasion be naturally expected to go, as we should have concludedthey did, if nothing farther was said; therefore, to fix the point of their destination, we are told, in answer to the query, “To what part of the western shore were they directed to go?” “To that part which wasnearoropposite toBethsaida.” The objection which may arise, that a place on the western side could not be very near to Bethsaida on the east, is answered by the fact that this city was separated from the western shore, not by the whole breadth of the lake, but simply by the little stream of Jordan, here not more than twenty yards wide, so that a place on the opposite side might still be very near the city. And this is what shows the topographical justness of the term, “over against,” given by Scott, and the French commentator, since a place not directly across or opposite, but down the western shore, in a south-westerly direction, as Capernaum was, would not bevery nearBethsaida, nor much less than five miles off. Thus is shown a beautiful mutual illustration of the literal and the liberal translations of the word.
Macknight ably answers another argument, which has been offered to defend the location of Bethsaida on the western shore, founded on Johnvi.23. “There came other boats from Tiberias, nigh unto the place where they did eat bread,” as if Tiberias had been near the desert of Bethsaida, and consequently near Bethsaida itself. “But,” as Macknight remarks, “the original, rightly pointed, imports only, that boats from Tiberias came into some creek or bay, nigh unto the place where they did eat bread.” Besides, it should be remembered that the object of those who came in the boats, was to find Jesus, whom they expected to find “nigh the place where they ate bread,” as the context shows; so that these words refer to their destination, and not to the place from which they came. Tiberias was down the lake, at the south-western corner of it, and I know of no geographer who has put Bethsaida more than half way down, even on the western shore. The difference, therefore, between the distance to Bethsaida on the west and to Bethsaida on the east, could not be at most above a mile or two, a matter not to be appreciated in a voyage of sixteen miles, from Tiberias, which cannot be said to be near Bethsaida, in any position of the latter that has ever been thought of. This objection, of course, is not offered at all, by those who suppose two Bethsaidas mentioned in the gospels, and grant that the passage in Lukeix.10, refers to the eastern one, where they suppose the place of eating bread to have been; but others, who have imagined only one Bethsaida, and that on the western side, have proposed this argument; and to such the reply is directed.
For all these reasons, topographical, historical and grammatical, the conclusion of the whole matter is——that there was butoneBethsaida, the same place being meant by that name in all passages in the gospels and in Josephus——that this place stood within the verge of Lower Gaulanitis, on the bank of the Jordan, just where it passes into the lake——that it was in the dominions of Philip the tetrarch, at the time when it is mentioned in the gospels, and afterwards was included in the kingdom of Agrippa——that its original Hebrew name, (fromביתbeth, “house,” andצדה,tsedah, “hunting, or fishing,” “a house of fishing,” no doubt so called from the common pursuit of its inhabitants,) was changed by Philip intoJulias, by which name it was known to Greeks and Romans.
By this view, we avoid the undesirable notion, that there are two totally different places mentioned in two succeeding chapters of the same gospel, without a word of explanation to inform us of the difference, as is usual in cases of local synonyms in the New Testament; and that Josephus describes a place of this name, without the slightest hint of the remarkable fact, that there was another place of the same name, not half a mile off, directly across the Jordan, in full view of it.
The discussion of the point has been necessarily protracted to a somewhat tedious length; but if fewer words would have expressed the truth and the reasons for it, it should have been briefer; and probably there is no reader who has endeavored to satisfy himself on the position of Bethsaida, in his own biblical studies, that will not feel some gratitude for what light this note may give, on a point where all common aids and authorities are in such monstrous confusion.
For the various opinions and statements on this difficult point, see Schleusner’s, Bretschneider’s and Wahl’s Lexicons, Lightfoot’s Chorographic century and decade, Wetstein’s New Testament commentary on Matthewiv.12, Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, Fritzsche, Macknight,&c.On the passages where the name occurs, also the French Commentary above quoted,——more especially inVol. III.Remarques sur le carte geographiquesection 7,p.357. Paulus’s “commentar ueber das neue Testament,”2dedition,Vol. II.pp.336–342.Topographische Erlaeuterungen.
Lake Gennesaret.——This body of water, bearing in the gospels the various namesof “the sea of Tiberias,” and “the sea of Galilee,” as well as “the lake of Gennesaret,” is formed like one or two other smaller ones north of it, by a widening of the Jordan, which flows in at the northern end, and passing through the middle, goes out at the southern end. On the western side, it was bounded by Galilee proper, and on the east was the lower division of that portion of Iturea, which was called Gaulanitis by the Greeks and Romans, from the ancient city of Golan, (Deuteronomyiv.43; Joshuaxx.8,&c.) which stood within its limits. Pliny (bookI.chapter 15,) well describes the situation and character of the lake. “Where the shape of the valley first allows it, the Jordan pours itself into a lake which is most commonly called Genesara, sixteen (Roman) miles long, and six broad. It is surrounded by pleasant towns; on the east, it has Julias (Bethsaida) and Hippus; on the south, Tarichea, by which name some call the lake also; on the west, Tiberias with its warm springs.” Josephus also gives a very clear and ample description. (Jewish War, book 3, chapter 9, section 7.) “Lake Gennesar takes its name from the country adjoining it. It is forty furlongs (about five or six miles) in width, and one hundred and forty (seventeen or eighteen miles) in length; yet the water is sweet, and very desirable to drink; for it has its fountain clear from swampy thickness, and is therefore quite pure, being bounded on all sides by a beach, and a sandy shore. It is moreover of a pleasant temperature to drink, being warmer than that of a river or a spring, on the one hand, but colder than that which stands always expanded over a lake. In coldness, indeed, it is not inferior to snow, when it has been exposed to the air all night, as is the custom with the people of that region. In it there are some kinds of fish, different both in appearance and taste from those in other places. The Jordan cuts through the middle of it.” He then gives a description of the course of the Jordan, ending with the remark quoted in the former note, that it enters the lake at the city of Julias. He then describes, in glowing terms, the richness and beauty of the country around, from which the lake takes its name,——a description too long to be given here; but the studious reader may find it in section eighth of the book and chapter above referred to. The Rabbinical writers too, often refer to the pre-eminent beauty and fertility of this delightful region, as is shown in several passages quoted by Lightfoot in his Centuria Chorographica, chapter 79. The derivation of the name there given from the Rabbins, isגני סרים,ginne sarim, “the gardens of the princes.” Thence the name genne-sar. They say it was within the lands of the tribe of Naphtali; it must therefore have been on the western side of the lake, which appears also from the fact that it was near Tiberias, as we are told on the same authority. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament under this name, but the Rabbins assure us that the place calledCinnereth, in Joshuaxx.35; Chinneroth inxi.2, is the same; and this lake is mentioned inxiii.27, under the name of “the sea of Chinnereth,”——“the sea of Chinneroth,” inxii.3,&c.
The best description of the scenery, and present aspect of the lake, which I can find, is the following from Conder’s Modern Traveler,Vol. 1.(Palestine) a work made up with great care from the observations of a great number of intelligent travelers.
“The mountains on the east of Lake Tiberias, come close to its shore, and the country on that side has not a very agreeable aspect; on the west, it has the plain of Tiberias, the high ground of the plain of Hutin, or Hottein, the plain of Gennesaret, and the foot of those hills by which you ascend to the high mountain of Saphet. To the north and south it has a plain country, or valley. There is a current throughout the whole breadth of the lake, even to the shore; and the passage of the Jordan through it, is discernible by the smoothness of the surface in that part. Various travelers have given a very different account of its general aspect. According to Captain Mangles, the land about it has no striking features, and the scenery is altogether devoid of character. ‘It appeared,’ he says, ‘to particular disadvantage to us, after those beautiful lakes we had seen in Switzerland; but it becomes a very interesting object, when you consider the frequent allusions to it in the gospel narrative.’Dr.Clarke, on the contrary, speaks of the uncommon grandeur of this memorable scenery. ‘The lake of Gennesaret,’ he says, ‘is surrounded by objects well calculated to highten the solemn impression,’ made by such recollections, and ‘affords one of the most striking prospects in the Holy Land. Speaking of it comparatively, it may be described as longer and finer than any of our Cumberland and Westmoreland lakes, although perhaps inferior to Loch Lomond. It does not possess the vastness of the Lake of Geneva, although it much resembles it in certain points of view. In picturesque beauty, it comes nearest to the Lake of Locarno, in Italy, although it is destitute of any thing similar to the islands by which that majestic piece of water is adorned. It is inferior in magnitude, and in the hight of its surrounding mountains,to the Lake Asphaltites.’Mr.Buckingham may perhaps be considered as having given the most accurate account, and one which reconciles, in some degree, the different statements above cited, when, speaking of the lake as seen from Tel Hoom, he says, ‘that its appearance is grand, but that the barren aspect of the mountains on each side, and the total absence of wood, give a cast of dulness to the picture; this is increased to melancholy, by the dead calm of its waters, and the silence which reigns throughout its whole extent, where not a boat or vessel of any kind is to be found.’
“Among the pebbles on the shore,Dr.Clarke found pieces of a porous rock, resemblingtoad-stone, its cavities filled with zeolite. Native gold is said to have been found here formerly. ‘We noticed,’ he says, ‘an appearance of this kind; but, on account of its trivial nature, neglected to pay proper attention to it. The water was as clear as the purest crystal; sweet, cool, and most refreshing. Swimming to a considerable distance from the shore, we found it so limpid that we could discern the bottom covered with shining pebbles. Among these stones was a beautiful, but very diminutive, kind of shell; a nondescript species ofBuccinum, which we have calledBuccinum Galilæum. We amused ourselves by diving for specimens; and the very circumstance of discerning such small objects beneath the surface, may prove the high transparency of the water.’ The situation of the lake, lying as it were in a deep basin between the hills which enclose it on all sides, excepting only the narrow entrance and outlets of the Jordan, at either end, protects its waters from long-continued tempests. Its surface is in general as smooth as that of the Dead Sea; but the same local features render it occasionally subject to whirlwinds, squalls, and sudden gusts from the mountains, of short duration, especially when the strong current formed by the Jordan, is opposed by a wind of this description, from the south-east; sweeping from the mountains with the force of a hurricane, it may easily be conceived that a boisterous sea must be instantly raised, which the small vessels of the country would be unable to resist. A storm of this description is plainly denoted by the language of the evangelist, in recounting one of our Lord’s miracles. ‘Therecame downa storm of wind on the lake, and they were filled with water, and were in jeopardy.... Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water; and they ceased, and there was a calm.’ (Lukeviii.23, 24.)”
The question of Peter’s being the oldest son of his father has been already alluded to, and decided by the most ancient authority, in favor of the opinion, that he was younger than Andrew. There surely is nothing unparalleled or remarkable in the fact, that the younger brother should so transcend the elder in ability and eminence; since Scripture history furnishes us with similar instances in Jacob, Judah and Joseph, Moses, David, and many others throughout the history of the Jews, although that nation generally regarded the rights of primogeniture with high reverence and respect.HIS INTRODUCTION TO JESUS.The earliest passage in the life of Peter, of which any record can be found, is given in the first chapter of John’s Gospel. In this, it appears that Peter and Andrew were at Bethabara, a place on the eastern bank of the Jordan, more than twenty miles south of their home at Bethsaida, and that they had probably left their business for a time, and gone thither, for the sake of hearing and seeing John the Baptist, who was then preaching at that place, and baptizing the penitent in the Jordan. This great forerunner of the Messiah, had already, by his strange habits of life, by hisfiery eloquence, by his violent and fearless zeal in denouncing the spirit of the times, attracted the attention of the people, of all classes, in various and distant parts of Palestine; and not merely of the vulgar and unenlightened portion of society, who are so much more susceptible to false impressions in such cases, but even of the well taught followers of the two great learned sects of the Jewish faith, whose members flocked to hear his bold and bitter condemnation of their precepts and practices. So widely had his fame spread, and so important were the results of his doctrine considered, that a deputation of priests and Levites was sent to him, from Jerusalem, (probably from the Sanhedrim, or grand civil and religious council,) to inquire into his character and pretensions. No doubt a particular interest was felt in this inquiry, from the fact that there was a general expectation abroad at that time, that the long-desired restorer of Israel was soon to appear; or, as expressed by Luke, there were many “who waited for the consolation of Israel,” and “who in Jerusalem looked for redemption.” Luke also expressly tells us, that the expectations of the multitude were strongly excited, and that all men mused in their hearts whether he were the Christ or not. In the midst of this general notion, so flattering, and so tempting to an ambitious man, John vindicates his honesty and sincerity, by distinctly declaring to the multitude, as well as to the deputation, that he wasnotthe Christ, and claimed for himself only the comparatively humble name and honors of the preparer of the way for the true king of Israel. This distinct disavowal, accompanied by the solemn declaration, that the true Messiah stood at that moment among them, though unknown in his real character, must have aggravated public curiosity to the highest pitch, and caused the people to await, with the most intense anxiety, the nomination of this mysterious king, which John was expected to make. Need we wonder, then, at the alacrity and determination with which the two disciples of John, who heard this announcement, followed the footsteps of Jesus, with the object of finding the dwelling place of the Messiah, or at the deep reverence with which they accosted him, giving him at once the highest term of honor which a Jew could confer on the wise and good,——“Rabbi,” or master? Nor is it surprising that Andrew, after the first day’s conversation with Jesus, should instantly seek out his beloved and zealous brother, and tell him the joyful and exciting news, that they had found the Messiah. The mention of this fact was enough forSimon, and he suffered himself to be brought at once to Jesus. The salutation with which the Redeemer greeted the man who was to be the leader of his consecrated host, was strikingly prophetical and full of meaning. His first words were the annunciation of his individual and family name, (no miracle, but an allusion to the hidden meaning of his name,) and the application of a new one, by which he was afterwards to be distinguished from the many who bore his common name. All these names have a deeply curious and interesting meaning. Translating them all from their original Aramaic forms, the salutation will be, “Thou art ahearer, theson of divine grace——thou shalt be called arock.” The first of these names (hearer) was a common title in use among the Jews, to distinguish those who had just offered themselves to the learned, as desiring wisdom in the law; and the second was applied to those who, having past the first probationary stage of instruction, were ranked as the approved and improving disciples of the law, under the hopeful title of the “sons of divine grace.” The third, which became afterwards the distinctive individual name of this apostle, was given, no doubt, in reference to the peculiar excellences of his natural genius, which seems to be thereby characterized as firm, unimpressible by difficulty, and affording fit materials for the foundation of a mighty and lasting superstructure.
The question of Peter’s being the oldest son of his father has been already alluded to, and decided by the most ancient authority, in favor of the opinion, that he was younger than Andrew. There surely is nothing unparalleled or remarkable in the fact, that the younger brother should so transcend the elder in ability and eminence; since Scripture history furnishes us with similar instances in Jacob, Judah and Joseph, Moses, David, and many others throughout the history of the Jews, although that nation generally regarded the rights of primogeniture with high reverence and respect.
HIS INTRODUCTION TO JESUS.
The earliest passage in the life of Peter, of which any record can be found, is given in the first chapter of John’s Gospel. In this, it appears that Peter and Andrew were at Bethabara, a place on the eastern bank of the Jordan, more than twenty miles south of their home at Bethsaida, and that they had probably left their business for a time, and gone thither, for the sake of hearing and seeing John the Baptist, who was then preaching at that place, and baptizing the penitent in the Jordan. This great forerunner of the Messiah, had already, by his strange habits of life, by hisfiery eloquence, by his violent and fearless zeal in denouncing the spirit of the times, attracted the attention of the people, of all classes, in various and distant parts of Palestine; and not merely of the vulgar and unenlightened portion of society, who are so much more susceptible to false impressions in such cases, but even of the well taught followers of the two great learned sects of the Jewish faith, whose members flocked to hear his bold and bitter condemnation of their precepts and practices. So widely had his fame spread, and so important were the results of his doctrine considered, that a deputation of priests and Levites was sent to him, from Jerusalem, (probably from the Sanhedrim, or grand civil and religious council,) to inquire into his character and pretensions. No doubt a particular interest was felt in this inquiry, from the fact that there was a general expectation abroad at that time, that the long-desired restorer of Israel was soon to appear; or, as expressed by Luke, there were many “who waited for the consolation of Israel,” and “who in Jerusalem looked for redemption.” Luke also expressly tells us, that the expectations of the multitude were strongly excited, and that all men mused in their hearts whether he were the Christ or not. In the midst of this general notion, so flattering, and so tempting to an ambitious man, John vindicates his honesty and sincerity, by distinctly declaring to the multitude, as well as to the deputation, that he wasnotthe Christ, and claimed for himself only the comparatively humble name and honors of the preparer of the way for the true king of Israel. This distinct disavowal, accompanied by the solemn declaration, that the true Messiah stood at that moment among them, though unknown in his real character, must have aggravated public curiosity to the highest pitch, and caused the people to await, with the most intense anxiety, the nomination of this mysterious king, which John was expected to make. Need we wonder, then, at the alacrity and determination with which the two disciples of John, who heard this announcement, followed the footsteps of Jesus, with the object of finding the dwelling place of the Messiah, or at the deep reverence with which they accosted him, giving him at once the highest term of honor which a Jew could confer on the wise and good,——“Rabbi,” or master? Nor is it surprising that Andrew, after the first day’s conversation with Jesus, should instantly seek out his beloved and zealous brother, and tell him the joyful and exciting news, that they had found the Messiah. The mention of this fact was enough forSimon, and he suffered himself to be brought at once to Jesus. The salutation with which the Redeemer greeted the man who was to be the leader of his consecrated host, was strikingly prophetical and full of meaning. His first words were the annunciation of his individual and family name, (no miracle, but an allusion to the hidden meaning of his name,) and the application of a new one, by which he was afterwards to be distinguished from the many who bore his common name. All these names have a deeply curious and interesting meaning. Translating them all from their original Aramaic forms, the salutation will be, “Thou art ahearer, theson of divine grace——thou shalt be called arock.” The first of these names (hearer) was a common title in use among the Jews, to distinguish those who had just offered themselves to the learned, as desiring wisdom in the law; and the second was applied to those who, having past the first probationary stage of instruction, were ranked as the approved and improving disciples of the law, under the hopeful title of the “sons of divine grace.” The third, which became afterwards the distinctive individual name of this apostle, was given, no doubt, in reference to the peculiar excellences of his natural genius, which seems to be thereby characterized as firm, unimpressible by difficulty, and affording fit materials for the foundation of a mighty and lasting superstructure.
The name Simon,שמונwas a common abridgment of Simeon,שמעונwhich means a hearer, and was a term applied technically as here mentioned. (For proofs and illustrations, see Poole’s Synopsis and Lightfoot.) The technical meaning of the name Jonah, given in the text, is that given by Grotius and Drusius, but Lightfoot rejects this interpretation, because the name Jonah is not fairly derived fromיוחנא(which is the name corresponding to John,) but is the same with that of the old prophet so named, and he is probably right in therefore rejecting this whimsical etymology and definition.
With this important event of the introduction of Simon to Jesus, and the application of his new and characteristic name, the life of Peter, as a follower of Christ, may be fairly said to have begun; and from this arises a simple division of the subject, into the two great natural portions of his life;first, in his state of pupilage and instruction under the prayerful, personal care of his devoted Master, during his earthly stay; andsecond, of his labors in the cause of his murdered and risen Lord, as his preacher and successor. These two portions of his life may be properly denominated hisdiscipleshipand hisapostleship; or perhaps still better, Peter thelearner, and Peter theteacher.
With this important event of the introduction of Simon to Jesus, and the application of his new and characteristic name, the life of Peter, as a follower of Christ, may be fairly said to have begun; and from this arises a simple division of the subject, into the two great natural portions of his life;first, in his state of pupilage and instruction under the prayerful, personal care of his devoted Master, during his earthly stay; andsecond, of his labors in the cause of his murdered and risen Lord, as his preacher and successor. These two portions of his life may be properly denominated hisdiscipleshipand hisapostleship; or perhaps still better, Peter thelearner, and Peter theteacher.
THE FORDS OF THE JORDAN.
THE FORDS OF THE JORDAN.
THE FORDS OF THE JORDAN.