JOSEPH BARNABAS.

JOSEPH BARNABAS.Ofthis apostle, so few circumstances are known, that are not inseparably connected with the life of Paul, in which they have been already recorded, that only a very brief space can be occupied with the events of his distinct life. The first passage in which he is mentioned, is that in the fourth chapter of Acts, where he is specified as having distinguished himself among those who sold their lands, for the sake of appropriating the avails to the support of the Christian community. Introduced to the notice of the reader under these most honorable circumstances, he is there described as of the tribe of Levi, and yet a resident in the island of Cyprus, where he seems to have held the land which he sacrificed to the purposes of religious charity. This island was for a long time, before and after that period, inhabited by great numbers of wealthy Jews, and there was hardly any part of the world, where they were so powerful and so favored, as in Cyprus; so that even the sacred order of the Levites might well find inducements to leave that consecrated soil to which they were more especially attached by the peculiar ordinances of the Mosaic institutions, and seek on this beautiful and fertile island, a new home, and a new seat for the faith of their fathers. The occasion on which Joseph (for that was his original name) left Cyprus to visit Jerusalem, is not known; nor can it even be determined whether he was ever himself a personal hearer of Jesus. He may very possibly have been one of the foreign Jews present at the Pentecost, and may there have been first converted to the Christian faith. On his distinguishing himself among his new brethren, both by good words and generous deeds, he was honored by the apostles with the name of Barnabas, which is interpreted in Greek by words that may mean either “son ofconsolation,” or “son ofexhortation.” The formersense, of course, would aptly refer to his generosity in comforting the poor apostolic community, by his pecuniary contributions, as just before mentioned; and this has induced many to prefer that meaning; but the majority of critical translators and commentators have been led, on a careful investigation both of the original Hebrew word and of the Greek translation of it, to prefer the meaning of “son ofexhortation” or “instruction,” a meaning which certainly well accords with the subsequent distinction attained by him in his apostolic labors. Both senses may, however, have been referred to, with an intentional equivoque.“Acts, chapteriv.verse 37.ὑπάρχοντος αὐτῳ ἀγροῦHe could not have sold that which was his paternal inheritance as a Levite; but this might perhaps be some legacy, or purchase of land in Judea, to which he might have a title till the next jubilee, or perhaps some land in Cyprus. (Doddridge.) That it was lawful for the Levites tobuyland, we learn from the example of Jeremiah himself, who was of the tribe of Levi. See Jeremiahxxxii.17. It is observed byBp.Pearce, that those commentators who contend that this land must have belonged to his wife, because, according to the law mentioned in Numbersxviii.20, 23 and 24,a Levite could have no inheritance in Israel, seem to have mistaken the sense of that law, ‘which,’ says he, ‘means only that the Levites, as a tribe, were not to have a share in the division of Canaan among the other tribes. This did not hinder any Levite from possessing lands in Judea, either by purchase or by gift, as well as in right of his wife. Josephus was a Levite, and a priest too; and yet in his Life, chapter 76, he speaks oflands which he had lying about Jerusalem, and in exchange of which, Vespasian gave him others, for his greater benefit and advantage. After all, I see no reason why we may not suppose that this land, which Barnabas had and sold, was not land in Judea; and if so, the words of the law, “no inheritance in Israel,” did not, however understood, affect their case. His land might have been in his own country, Cyprus, an island of no great distance from Judea; and he might have sold it at Jerusalem to some purchaser there; perhaps to one of his own countrymen.’” (Bloomfield’s Annotations,Vol. IV.pp.147, 148.)In all the other passages of the New Testament in which he is mentioned, he is associated with Paul, and every recorded act of his life has been already given in the life of his great associate. His first acquaintance with him on his return to Jerusalem after his conversion,——his mission to Antioch and labors there in conjunction with Paul, when he had brought him from Tarsus,——their visit to Jerusalem,——their return to Antioch,——their first great mission through Asia Minor——their visit to Jerusalem at the council, and their joint report,——their second return to Antioch,——their proposed association in a new mission,——their quarrel and separation,——have all been fully detailed; nor is there any authentic source from which any facts can be derived, as to the subsequent incidents of his life. All that is related of him in the Acts, is, that after his separation from Paul, he sailed to Cyprus; nor is any mention made, in any of the epistles, of his subsequent life. The time and place of his death are also unknown.

Ofthis apostle, so few circumstances are known, that are not inseparably connected with the life of Paul, in which they have been already recorded, that only a very brief space can be occupied with the events of his distinct life. The first passage in which he is mentioned, is that in the fourth chapter of Acts, where he is specified as having distinguished himself among those who sold their lands, for the sake of appropriating the avails to the support of the Christian community. Introduced to the notice of the reader under these most honorable circumstances, he is there described as of the tribe of Levi, and yet a resident in the island of Cyprus, where he seems to have held the land which he sacrificed to the purposes of religious charity. This island was for a long time, before and after that period, inhabited by great numbers of wealthy Jews, and there was hardly any part of the world, where they were so powerful and so favored, as in Cyprus; so that even the sacred order of the Levites might well find inducements to leave that consecrated soil to which they were more especially attached by the peculiar ordinances of the Mosaic institutions, and seek on this beautiful and fertile island, a new home, and a new seat for the faith of their fathers. The occasion on which Joseph (for that was his original name) left Cyprus to visit Jerusalem, is not known; nor can it even be determined whether he was ever himself a personal hearer of Jesus. He may very possibly have been one of the foreign Jews present at the Pentecost, and may there have been first converted to the Christian faith. On his distinguishing himself among his new brethren, both by good words and generous deeds, he was honored by the apostles with the name of Barnabas, which is interpreted in Greek by words that may mean either “son ofconsolation,” or “son ofexhortation.” The formersense, of course, would aptly refer to his generosity in comforting the poor apostolic community, by his pecuniary contributions, as just before mentioned; and this has induced many to prefer that meaning; but the majority of critical translators and commentators have been led, on a careful investigation both of the original Hebrew word and of the Greek translation of it, to prefer the meaning of “son ofexhortation” or “instruction,” a meaning which certainly well accords with the subsequent distinction attained by him in his apostolic labors. Both senses may, however, have been referred to, with an intentional equivoque.

“Acts, chapteriv.verse 37.ὑπάρχοντος αὐτῳ ἀγροῦHe could not have sold that which was his paternal inheritance as a Levite; but this might perhaps be some legacy, or purchase of land in Judea, to which he might have a title till the next jubilee, or perhaps some land in Cyprus. (Doddridge.) That it was lawful for the Levites tobuyland, we learn from the example of Jeremiah himself, who was of the tribe of Levi. See Jeremiahxxxii.17. It is observed byBp.Pearce, that those commentators who contend that this land must have belonged to his wife, because, according to the law mentioned in Numbersxviii.20, 23 and 24,a Levite could have no inheritance in Israel, seem to have mistaken the sense of that law, ‘which,’ says he, ‘means only that the Levites, as a tribe, were not to have a share in the division of Canaan among the other tribes. This did not hinder any Levite from possessing lands in Judea, either by purchase or by gift, as well as in right of his wife. Josephus was a Levite, and a priest too; and yet in his Life, chapter 76, he speaks oflands which he had lying about Jerusalem, and in exchange of which, Vespasian gave him others, for his greater benefit and advantage. After all, I see no reason why we may not suppose that this land, which Barnabas had and sold, was not land in Judea; and if so, the words of the law, “no inheritance in Israel,” did not, however understood, affect their case. His land might have been in his own country, Cyprus, an island of no great distance from Judea; and he might have sold it at Jerusalem to some purchaser there; perhaps to one of his own countrymen.’” (Bloomfield’s Annotations,Vol. IV.pp.147, 148.)

In all the other passages of the New Testament in which he is mentioned, he is associated with Paul, and every recorded act of his life has been already given in the life of his great associate. His first acquaintance with him on his return to Jerusalem after his conversion,——his mission to Antioch and labors there in conjunction with Paul, when he had brought him from Tarsus,——their visit to Jerusalem,——their return to Antioch,——their first great mission through Asia Minor——their visit to Jerusalem at the council, and their joint report,——their second return to Antioch,——their proposed association in a new mission,——their quarrel and separation,——have all been fully detailed; nor is there any authentic source from which any facts can be derived, as to the subsequent incidents of his life. All that is related of him in the Acts, is, that after his separation from Paul, he sailed to Cyprus; nor is any mention made, in any of the epistles, of his subsequent life. The time and place of his death are also unknown.

JOHN MARK.Ofthe family and birth of this eminent apostolic associate, it is recorded in the New Testament, that his mother was named Mary, and had a house in Jerusalem, which was a regular place of religious assembly, for the Christians in that city; for Peter on his deliverance from prison, went directly thither, as though sure of finding there some of the brethren; and he actually did find a number of them assembled for prayer. Of the other connections of Mark, the interesting fact is recorded, that Mary, his mother, was the sister of Barnabas; and he was therefore by the maternal line, at least, of Levite descent. From the mode in which Mary is mentioned, it would seem that her husband was dead at that time; but nothing else can be inferred about the father of Mark. The first event in which he is distinctly mentioned as concerned, is the return of Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem to Antioch, after Peter’s escape. These two apostles, on this occasion, are said to have “taken with them, John whose surname was Mark;” and he is afterwards mentioned under either of these names, or both together. The former was his original appellation; but being exceedingly common among the Jews, and being, moreover, borne by one of the apostles, it required another distinctive word to be joined with it. It is remarkable that a Roman, heathen appellation, was chosen for this purpose;——Marcus, which is the true form in the original, being a name of purely Latin origin, and one of the commonest praenomens among the Romans. It might have been the name of some person connected with the Roman government in Jerusalem, who had distinguished himself as a friend or patron of the family: but the conjecture is hardly worth offering.After returning with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, he was next called to accompany them as an assistant in their apostolicvoyage through Cyprus and Asia Minor; but on their coming to Perga, in Pamphylia, he suddenly left them and returned to Jerusalem;——a change of purpose which was considered, by Paul at least, as resulting from a want of resolution, steadiness, or courage, and was the occasion of a very serious difficulty; for Mark having returned to Antioch afterwards, was taken by Barnabas, as a proper associate on the proposed mission over the former fields of labor; but Paul utterly rejected him, because he had already, on the same route, once deserted them, when they needed his services, and he therefore refused to go in his company again. This difference was the occasion of that unhappy contention, the incidents of which have already been particularly detailed in the Life of Paul. Mark however, being resolutely supported by his uncle, accompanied him to Cyprus; but of his next movement, as little is known as in respect to Barnabas. The next occasion on which his name is mentioned, is by Paul, in his epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, as being then with him in Rome; from which it appears, the great apostle had now for a long time been reconciled to him, and esteemed him as a valuable associate in the ministry. He is not mentioned in the epistle to the Philippians, which therefore makes it probable that he had then gone to the east. In the second epistle to Timothy, Paul requests that Mark may be sent to him, because he is profitable to him for the ministry; which is a most abundant testimony to his merits, and to the re-establishment of Paul’s confidence in his zeal, resolution, and ability. Whether he was actually sent to Rome as requested, does not appear;——but he is afterwards distinctly mentioned by Peter, in that epistle which he wrote from Babylon, as being then with him. The title of “son,” which Peter gives him, seems to imply a very near and familiar intimacy between them; and is probably connected with the circumstance of his being made the subject of the chief apostle’s particular religious instructions in his youth, in consequence of the frequent meetings of the brethren at the house of his mother, Mary. This passage is sufficient evidence that after Mark had finally left Rome, he journeyed eastward and joined Peter, his venerable first instructor, who, as has already been abundantly shown in his Life, was at this time in Babylon, whence, in the year 65, he wrote his first epistle.“It is thought by Benson that Mark departed because his presence was required by the apostles for converting the Jews of Palestine. But why then should Paul have expressed indignation at his departure? The same objection will apply to the conjecture of others, that he departed on account of ill-health. The most probableopinion is that of Grotius, Wetstein, Bengel, Heumann, and others, that Mark was,at that time, somewhat averse to labors and dangers; this, indeed, is clear from the words,καὶ μὴ συνελθόντα αὐτοῖς εἰς τό ἔργον. Thusἀφίστημιis used ofdefectionin Lukeviii.13. 1 Timothyiv.1. It should seem that Mark had now repented of his inconstancy; (and, as Bengel thinks, new ardor had been infused into him by the decree of the Synod at Jerusalem, and the free admission of the Gentiles;) and hence his kind-hearted and obliging relation Barnabas wished to take him as a companion of their present journey. But Paul, who had ‘no respect of persons,’ Galatiansii.11, and thought that disposition rather than relationship should be consulted, distrusted the constancy of Mark, and was therefore unwilling to take him. This severity of Paul, however, rendered much service both to Mark and to the cause of Christianity. For Mark profited by the well-meant admonition, and was, for the future, more zealous and courageous; and the gospel, being preached in different places at the same time, was the more widely propagated. Nor were the bands of amity between Paul and Barnabas permanently separated by this disagreement. See 1 Corinthiansix.6. Nay, Paul afterwards received Mark into his friendship. See Colossiansiv.10. 2 Timothyiv.11. Philemon 23.” Kuinoel. (Bloomfield’s Annotations,Vol. IV.p.504, 505.)HIS GOSPEL.The circumstance which makes this apostle more especially eminent, and makes him an object of interest to the Christian reader, is, that he is the author of an important portion of the historical sacred canon. Respecting the gospel of Mark, the testimony of some very early and valuable accounts given by the Fathers, is, that he wrote under the general direction and superintendence of his spiritual father, Peter; and from this early and uniform tradition, he accordingly bears the name of “Peter’s interpreter.” The very common story is also, that it was written inRome, but this is not asserted on any early or trustworthy authority, and must be condemned, along with all those statements which pretend that the chief apostle ever was in Italy. Others affirm also, that it was published by him in Alexandria; but this story comes on too late authority to be highly esteemed. Taking as true, the very reasonable statement of the early Fathers, that when he wrote, he had the advantage of the personal assistance or superintendence of Peter, it is very fair to conclude, that Babylon was the place in which it was written, and that its date was about the same with that of the epistle of Peter, in which Mark is mentioned as being with him. Peter was then old; and Mark himself, doubtless too young to have been an intelligent hearer of Jesus, would feel the great importance of having a correct and well-authorized record prepared, to which the second generation of Christians might look for the sure testimonies of those divine words, whose spoken accounts were then floating in the parting breath of the few and venerable apostles, and in the memories of their favored hearers. As long as the apostles lived and preached, there was little or no need of a written gospel. All believers inChrist had been led to that faith by the living words of his inspired hearers and personal disciples. But when these were gone, other means would be wanted for the perpetuation of the authenticated truth; and to afford these means to the greatest possible number, and to those most especially in want of such a record, from the fact that they had never seen nor heard either Jesus or his personal disciples,——Mark chose the Greek as the proper language in which to make this communication to the world.His gospel is so much like that of Matthew, containing hardly a single passage which is not given by that writer, that it has been very confidently believed by many theologians who suppose an early date to Matthew’s gospel, that Mark had that gospel before him when he wrote, and merely epitomized it. The verbal coincidences between the two gospels, in their present state, are so numerous and striking, that it has been considered impossible to account for them on any other supposition than this. But these and other questions have filled volumes, and have exercised the skill of critics for ages; nor can any justice be done them by a hasty abstract. It seems sufficient, however, to answer all queries about these verbal coincidences, without meddling with the question of prior date, by a reference to the fact that, during the whole period, intervening between the death of Christ, and the writing of the gospels, the apostles and first preachers had been proclaiming, week after week, and day after day, an oral or spoken gospel, in which they were constantly repeating before each other, and before different hearers, the narrative of the words and actions of Jesus. These accounts by this constant routine of repetition, would unavoidably assume a regular established form, which would at last be the standard account of the acts and words of the Savior. These, Mark, of course, adopted when he wrote, and the other evangelists doing the same, the coincidences mentioned would naturally result; and as different apostles, though speaking under the influence of inspiration, would yet make numerous slight variations in words, and in the minor circumstances expressed or suppressed, the different writers following one account or the other, would make the trifling variations also noticeable. The only peculiarity that can be noticed in Mark, is, that he very uniformly suppresses all those splendid testimonies to the merits and honors of Peter, with which the others abound,——a circumstance at once easily traceable to the fact that Peter himself was the immediate director of the work, and with that noblemodesty, which always distinguished the great apostolic chief, would naturally avoid any allusion to matters which so highly exalted his own merits. Otherwise, the narrative of Mark can be characterized only as a plain statement of the incidents in the public life of Jesus, with very few of his discourses, and none of his words at so great length as in the other gospels; from which it is evident, that an account of his acts rather than his sermons,——of his doings rather than his sayings, is what he designed to give.“Among all the quotations hitherto made from the writings of the most ancient Fathers, we find no mention made of Mark’s having published his gospel at Alexandria. This report, however, prevailed in the fourth century, as appears from what is related by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome. It is first mentioned by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History,lib. ii.cap. 16.It appears from the wordφασιν, that Eusebius mentions this only as a report; and what is immediately added in the same place, that the persons, whose severity of life and manners is described by Philo, were the converts which Mark made at Alexandria, is evidently false. Epiphanius, in his fifty-first Heresy,ch. vi.gives some account of it. According to his statement, Mark wrote his gospel in Rome, while Peter was teaching the Christian religion in that city; and after he had written it, he was sent by Peter into Egypt. A similar account is given by Jerome in his ‘Treatise on Illustrious Men,’ch. viii.Lastly, the Coptic Christians of the present age consider Mark as the founder and first bishop of their church; and their Patriarch styles himself, ‘Unworthy servant of Jesus Christ, called by the grace of God, and by his gracious will appointed to his service, and to the see of the holy evangelist Mark.’ The Copts pretend likewise, that Mark was murdered by a band of robbers, near the lake Menzale; but if this account be true, he was hardly buried at Alexandria, and his tomb in that city must be one of the forgeries of early superstition.” (Michaelis,Vol. III.pp.207–209.)That it is not wholly new to rank Mark among theapostles, is shown by the usages of the Fathers, who, in the application of terms, are authority, as far as they show the opinions prevalent in their times. Eusebius says, “that in the eighth year of Nero, Anianus, the first bishop of Alexandria after Mark, theapostleand♦evangelist, took upon him the care of that church.”Πρωτος μετα Μαρκον τον αποστολον και ευαγγελιστην, της εν Αλεξανδρειᾳ παροίκιας, Ανιανος την λειτουργιαν διαδεχεται.Church History,I. 2.cap. 24.(Lardner’s Credibility of Gospel History,Vol. III.p.176.)♦“avangelist” replaced with “evangelist”Of the later movements of Mark, nothing is known with certainty. Being evidently younger than most of the original apostles, it is not unreasonable to suppose that he long survived them; but his field of labor is unknown. The common tradition among the Fathers, after the third century, is, that he went to Alexandria, and there founding a church, became bishop of it till his death;——but the statement is mixed up with so much that is palpably false, that it is not entitled to any credit.

Ofthe family and birth of this eminent apostolic associate, it is recorded in the New Testament, that his mother was named Mary, and had a house in Jerusalem, which was a regular place of religious assembly, for the Christians in that city; for Peter on his deliverance from prison, went directly thither, as though sure of finding there some of the brethren; and he actually did find a number of them assembled for prayer. Of the other connections of Mark, the interesting fact is recorded, that Mary, his mother, was the sister of Barnabas; and he was therefore by the maternal line, at least, of Levite descent. From the mode in which Mary is mentioned, it would seem that her husband was dead at that time; but nothing else can be inferred about the father of Mark. The first event in which he is distinctly mentioned as concerned, is the return of Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem to Antioch, after Peter’s escape. These two apostles, on this occasion, are said to have “taken with them, John whose surname was Mark;” and he is afterwards mentioned under either of these names, or both together. The former was his original appellation; but being exceedingly common among the Jews, and being, moreover, borne by one of the apostles, it required another distinctive word to be joined with it. It is remarkable that a Roman, heathen appellation, was chosen for this purpose;——Marcus, which is the true form in the original, being a name of purely Latin origin, and one of the commonest praenomens among the Romans. It might have been the name of some person connected with the Roman government in Jerusalem, who had distinguished himself as a friend or patron of the family: but the conjecture is hardly worth offering.After returning with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, he was next called to accompany them as an assistant in their apostolicvoyage through Cyprus and Asia Minor; but on their coming to Perga, in Pamphylia, he suddenly left them and returned to Jerusalem;——a change of purpose which was considered, by Paul at least, as resulting from a want of resolution, steadiness, or courage, and was the occasion of a very serious difficulty; for Mark having returned to Antioch afterwards, was taken by Barnabas, as a proper associate on the proposed mission over the former fields of labor; but Paul utterly rejected him, because he had already, on the same route, once deserted them, when they needed his services, and he therefore refused to go in his company again. This difference was the occasion of that unhappy contention, the incidents of which have already been particularly detailed in the Life of Paul. Mark however, being resolutely supported by his uncle, accompanied him to Cyprus; but of his next movement, as little is known as in respect to Barnabas. The next occasion on which his name is mentioned, is by Paul, in his epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, as being then with him in Rome; from which it appears, the great apostle had now for a long time been reconciled to him, and esteemed him as a valuable associate in the ministry. He is not mentioned in the epistle to the Philippians, which therefore makes it probable that he had then gone to the east. In the second epistle to Timothy, Paul requests that Mark may be sent to him, because he is profitable to him for the ministry; which is a most abundant testimony to his merits, and to the re-establishment of Paul’s confidence in his zeal, resolution, and ability. Whether he was actually sent to Rome as requested, does not appear;——but he is afterwards distinctly mentioned by Peter, in that epistle which he wrote from Babylon, as being then with him. The title of “son,” which Peter gives him, seems to imply a very near and familiar intimacy between them; and is probably connected with the circumstance of his being made the subject of the chief apostle’s particular religious instructions in his youth, in consequence of the frequent meetings of the brethren at the house of his mother, Mary. This passage is sufficient evidence that after Mark had finally left Rome, he journeyed eastward and joined Peter, his venerable first instructor, who, as has already been abundantly shown in his Life, was at this time in Babylon, whence, in the year 65, he wrote his first epistle.

After returning with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, he was next called to accompany them as an assistant in their apostolicvoyage through Cyprus and Asia Minor; but on their coming to Perga, in Pamphylia, he suddenly left them and returned to Jerusalem;——a change of purpose which was considered, by Paul at least, as resulting from a want of resolution, steadiness, or courage, and was the occasion of a very serious difficulty; for Mark having returned to Antioch afterwards, was taken by Barnabas, as a proper associate on the proposed mission over the former fields of labor; but Paul utterly rejected him, because he had already, on the same route, once deserted them, when they needed his services, and he therefore refused to go in his company again. This difference was the occasion of that unhappy contention, the incidents of which have already been particularly detailed in the Life of Paul. Mark however, being resolutely supported by his uncle, accompanied him to Cyprus; but of his next movement, as little is known as in respect to Barnabas. The next occasion on which his name is mentioned, is by Paul, in his epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, as being then with him in Rome; from which it appears, the great apostle had now for a long time been reconciled to him, and esteemed him as a valuable associate in the ministry. He is not mentioned in the epistle to the Philippians, which therefore makes it probable that he had then gone to the east. In the second epistle to Timothy, Paul requests that Mark may be sent to him, because he is profitable to him for the ministry; which is a most abundant testimony to his merits, and to the re-establishment of Paul’s confidence in his zeal, resolution, and ability. Whether he was actually sent to Rome as requested, does not appear;——but he is afterwards distinctly mentioned by Peter, in that epistle which he wrote from Babylon, as being then with him. The title of “son,” which Peter gives him, seems to imply a very near and familiar intimacy between them; and is probably connected with the circumstance of his being made the subject of the chief apostle’s particular religious instructions in his youth, in consequence of the frequent meetings of the brethren at the house of his mother, Mary. This passage is sufficient evidence that after Mark had finally left Rome, he journeyed eastward and joined Peter, his venerable first instructor, who, as has already been abundantly shown in his Life, was at this time in Babylon, whence, in the year 65, he wrote his first epistle.

“It is thought by Benson that Mark departed because his presence was required by the apostles for converting the Jews of Palestine. But why then should Paul have expressed indignation at his departure? The same objection will apply to the conjecture of others, that he departed on account of ill-health. The most probableopinion is that of Grotius, Wetstein, Bengel, Heumann, and others, that Mark was,at that time, somewhat averse to labors and dangers; this, indeed, is clear from the words,καὶ μὴ συνελθόντα αὐτοῖς εἰς τό ἔργον. Thusἀφίστημιis used ofdefectionin Lukeviii.13. 1 Timothyiv.1. It should seem that Mark had now repented of his inconstancy; (and, as Bengel thinks, new ardor had been infused into him by the decree of the Synod at Jerusalem, and the free admission of the Gentiles;) and hence his kind-hearted and obliging relation Barnabas wished to take him as a companion of their present journey. But Paul, who had ‘no respect of persons,’ Galatiansii.11, and thought that disposition rather than relationship should be consulted, distrusted the constancy of Mark, and was therefore unwilling to take him. This severity of Paul, however, rendered much service both to Mark and to the cause of Christianity. For Mark profited by the well-meant admonition, and was, for the future, more zealous and courageous; and the gospel, being preached in different places at the same time, was the more widely propagated. Nor were the bands of amity between Paul and Barnabas permanently separated by this disagreement. See 1 Corinthiansix.6. Nay, Paul afterwards received Mark into his friendship. See Colossiansiv.10. 2 Timothyiv.11. Philemon 23.” Kuinoel. (Bloomfield’s Annotations,Vol. IV.p.504, 505.)

HIS GOSPEL.The circumstance which makes this apostle more especially eminent, and makes him an object of interest to the Christian reader, is, that he is the author of an important portion of the historical sacred canon. Respecting the gospel of Mark, the testimony of some very early and valuable accounts given by the Fathers, is, that he wrote under the general direction and superintendence of his spiritual father, Peter; and from this early and uniform tradition, he accordingly bears the name of “Peter’s interpreter.” The very common story is also, that it was written inRome, but this is not asserted on any early or trustworthy authority, and must be condemned, along with all those statements which pretend that the chief apostle ever was in Italy. Others affirm also, that it was published by him in Alexandria; but this story comes on too late authority to be highly esteemed. Taking as true, the very reasonable statement of the early Fathers, that when he wrote, he had the advantage of the personal assistance or superintendence of Peter, it is very fair to conclude, that Babylon was the place in which it was written, and that its date was about the same with that of the epistle of Peter, in which Mark is mentioned as being with him. Peter was then old; and Mark himself, doubtless too young to have been an intelligent hearer of Jesus, would feel the great importance of having a correct and well-authorized record prepared, to which the second generation of Christians might look for the sure testimonies of those divine words, whose spoken accounts were then floating in the parting breath of the few and venerable apostles, and in the memories of their favored hearers. As long as the apostles lived and preached, there was little or no need of a written gospel. All believers inChrist had been led to that faith by the living words of his inspired hearers and personal disciples. But when these were gone, other means would be wanted for the perpetuation of the authenticated truth; and to afford these means to the greatest possible number, and to those most especially in want of such a record, from the fact that they had never seen nor heard either Jesus or his personal disciples,——Mark chose the Greek as the proper language in which to make this communication to the world.His gospel is so much like that of Matthew, containing hardly a single passage which is not given by that writer, that it has been very confidently believed by many theologians who suppose an early date to Matthew’s gospel, that Mark had that gospel before him when he wrote, and merely epitomized it. The verbal coincidences between the two gospels, in their present state, are so numerous and striking, that it has been considered impossible to account for them on any other supposition than this. But these and other questions have filled volumes, and have exercised the skill of critics for ages; nor can any justice be done them by a hasty abstract. It seems sufficient, however, to answer all queries about these verbal coincidences, without meddling with the question of prior date, by a reference to the fact that, during the whole period, intervening between the death of Christ, and the writing of the gospels, the apostles and first preachers had been proclaiming, week after week, and day after day, an oral or spoken gospel, in which they were constantly repeating before each other, and before different hearers, the narrative of the words and actions of Jesus. These accounts by this constant routine of repetition, would unavoidably assume a regular established form, which would at last be the standard account of the acts and words of the Savior. These, Mark, of course, adopted when he wrote, and the other evangelists doing the same, the coincidences mentioned would naturally result; and as different apostles, though speaking under the influence of inspiration, would yet make numerous slight variations in words, and in the minor circumstances expressed or suppressed, the different writers following one account or the other, would make the trifling variations also noticeable. The only peculiarity that can be noticed in Mark, is, that he very uniformly suppresses all those splendid testimonies to the merits and honors of Peter, with which the others abound,——a circumstance at once easily traceable to the fact that Peter himself was the immediate director of the work, and with that noblemodesty, which always distinguished the great apostolic chief, would naturally avoid any allusion to matters which so highly exalted his own merits. Otherwise, the narrative of Mark can be characterized only as a plain statement of the incidents in the public life of Jesus, with very few of his discourses, and none of his words at so great length as in the other gospels; from which it is evident, that an account of his acts rather than his sermons,——of his doings rather than his sayings, is what he designed to give.

HIS GOSPEL.

The circumstance which makes this apostle more especially eminent, and makes him an object of interest to the Christian reader, is, that he is the author of an important portion of the historical sacred canon. Respecting the gospel of Mark, the testimony of some very early and valuable accounts given by the Fathers, is, that he wrote under the general direction and superintendence of his spiritual father, Peter; and from this early and uniform tradition, he accordingly bears the name of “Peter’s interpreter.” The very common story is also, that it was written inRome, but this is not asserted on any early or trustworthy authority, and must be condemned, along with all those statements which pretend that the chief apostle ever was in Italy. Others affirm also, that it was published by him in Alexandria; but this story comes on too late authority to be highly esteemed. Taking as true, the very reasonable statement of the early Fathers, that when he wrote, he had the advantage of the personal assistance or superintendence of Peter, it is very fair to conclude, that Babylon was the place in which it was written, and that its date was about the same with that of the epistle of Peter, in which Mark is mentioned as being with him. Peter was then old; and Mark himself, doubtless too young to have been an intelligent hearer of Jesus, would feel the great importance of having a correct and well-authorized record prepared, to which the second generation of Christians might look for the sure testimonies of those divine words, whose spoken accounts were then floating in the parting breath of the few and venerable apostles, and in the memories of their favored hearers. As long as the apostles lived and preached, there was little or no need of a written gospel. All believers inChrist had been led to that faith by the living words of his inspired hearers and personal disciples. But when these were gone, other means would be wanted for the perpetuation of the authenticated truth; and to afford these means to the greatest possible number, and to those most especially in want of such a record, from the fact that they had never seen nor heard either Jesus or his personal disciples,——Mark chose the Greek as the proper language in which to make this communication to the world.

His gospel is so much like that of Matthew, containing hardly a single passage which is not given by that writer, that it has been very confidently believed by many theologians who suppose an early date to Matthew’s gospel, that Mark had that gospel before him when he wrote, and merely epitomized it. The verbal coincidences between the two gospels, in their present state, are so numerous and striking, that it has been considered impossible to account for them on any other supposition than this. But these and other questions have filled volumes, and have exercised the skill of critics for ages; nor can any justice be done them by a hasty abstract. It seems sufficient, however, to answer all queries about these verbal coincidences, without meddling with the question of prior date, by a reference to the fact that, during the whole period, intervening between the death of Christ, and the writing of the gospels, the apostles and first preachers had been proclaiming, week after week, and day after day, an oral or spoken gospel, in which they were constantly repeating before each other, and before different hearers, the narrative of the words and actions of Jesus. These accounts by this constant routine of repetition, would unavoidably assume a regular established form, which would at last be the standard account of the acts and words of the Savior. These, Mark, of course, adopted when he wrote, and the other evangelists doing the same, the coincidences mentioned would naturally result; and as different apostles, though speaking under the influence of inspiration, would yet make numerous slight variations in words, and in the minor circumstances expressed or suppressed, the different writers following one account or the other, would make the trifling variations also noticeable. The only peculiarity that can be noticed in Mark, is, that he very uniformly suppresses all those splendid testimonies to the merits and honors of Peter, with which the others abound,——a circumstance at once easily traceable to the fact that Peter himself was the immediate director of the work, and with that noblemodesty, which always distinguished the great apostolic chief, would naturally avoid any allusion to matters which so highly exalted his own merits. Otherwise, the narrative of Mark can be characterized only as a plain statement of the incidents in the public life of Jesus, with very few of his discourses, and none of his words at so great length as in the other gospels; from which it is evident, that an account of his acts rather than his sermons,——of his doings rather than his sayings, is what he designed to give.

“Among all the quotations hitherto made from the writings of the most ancient Fathers, we find no mention made of Mark’s having published his gospel at Alexandria. This report, however, prevailed in the fourth century, as appears from what is related by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome. It is first mentioned by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History,lib. ii.cap. 16.It appears from the wordφασιν, that Eusebius mentions this only as a report; and what is immediately added in the same place, that the persons, whose severity of life and manners is described by Philo, were the converts which Mark made at Alexandria, is evidently false. Epiphanius, in his fifty-first Heresy,ch. vi.gives some account of it. According to his statement, Mark wrote his gospel in Rome, while Peter was teaching the Christian religion in that city; and after he had written it, he was sent by Peter into Egypt. A similar account is given by Jerome in his ‘Treatise on Illustrious Men,’ch. viii.Lastly, the Coptic Christians of the present age consider Mark as the founder and first bishop of their church; and their Patriarch styles himself, ‘Unworthy servant of Jesus Christ, called by the grace of God, and by his gracious will appointed to his service, and to the see of the holy evangelist Mark.’ The Copts pretend likewise, that Mark was murdered by a band of robbers, near the lake Menzale; but if this account be true, he was hardly buried at Alexandria, and his tomb in that city must be one of the forgeries of early superstition.” (Michaelis,Vol. III.pp.207–209.)

That it is not wholly new to rank Mark among theapostles, is shown by the usages of the Fathers, who, in the application of terms, are authority, as far as they show the opinions prevalent in their times. Eusebius says, “that in the eighth year of Nero, Anianus, the first bishop of Alexandria after Mark, theapostleand♦evangelist, took upon him the care of that church.”Πρωτος μετα Μαρκον τον αποστολον και ευαγγελιστην, της εν Αλεξανδρειᾳ παροίκιας, Ανιανος την λειτουργιαν διαδεχεται.Church History,I. 2.cap. 24.(Lardner’s Credibility of Gospel History,Vol. III.p.176.)

♦“avangelist” replaced with “evangelist”

Of the later movements of Mark, nothing is known with certainty. Being evidently younger than most of the original apostles, it is not unreasonable to suppose that he long survived them; but his field of labor is unknown. The common tradition among the Fathers, after the third century, is, that he went to Alexandria, and there founding a church, became bishop of it till his death;——but the statement is mixed up with so much that is palpably false, that it is not entitled to any credit.

LUKE.Verylittle direct mention is made of this valuable contributor to the sacred canon, in any part of the New Testament; and those notices which seem to refer to him, are so vague, that they have been denied to have any connection with the evangelist. The name which is given in the title of his gospel is, in the original form,Lucas, a name undoubtedly of Latin origin, but shown by its final syllable to be a Hebrew-Greek corruption and abridgment of some pure Roman word; for it was customary for the New Testament writers to make these changes, to accord with their own forms of utterance. Lucas, therefore, is an abridgment of some one of two or three Roman words, either Lucius, Lucilius or Lucanus; and as the writers of that age were accustomed to write either the full or abridged form of any such name, indifferently, it seems allowable to recognize the Lucius mentioned in Acts and in the Epistle to the Romans, as the same person with the evangelist. From the manner in which this Lucius is mentioned in the last chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, it would seem that he was related to Paul by blood or marriage, since the apostle mentions him along with Jason and Sosipater, as his “kinsman.” In the beginning of the thirteenth chapter of Acts, Lucius is called “the Cyrenian,” whence his country may be inferred to have been the province of northern Africa, called Cyrene, long and early the seat of Grecian refinement, art, eloquence and philosophy, and immortalized by having given name to one of the sects of Grecian philosophers,——the Cyrenaic school, founded by Aristippus. Whether he was a Jew by birth, or a heathen, is not known, and has been much disputed. His birth and education in that seat of Grecian literature, may be reasonably considered as having contributed to that peculiar elegance of his language and style, which distinguishes him as the most correct of all the writers of the New Testament.His relationship to Paul, (if it may be believed on so slight grounds,) was probably a reason for his accompanying him as he did through so large a portion of his travels and labors. He first speaks of himself as a companion of Paul, at the beginning of his first voyage to Europe, at Troas; and accompanies him to Philippi, where he seems to have parted from him, since, in describing the movements of the apostolic company, he no longer uses the pronoun “we.” He probably staid in or near Philippi several years, for he resumes the word, in describing Paul’s voyage from Philippi to Jerusalem. He was his companion as far as Caesarea, where he probably staid during Paul’s visit to Jerusalem; remained with him perhaps during his two years’ imprisonment in Caesarea, and was certainly his companion on his voyage to Rome. He remained with him there till a short time before his release; and is mentioned no more till Paul, in his last writing, the second epistle to Timothy, says, “Luke alone is with me.” Beyond this, not the slightest trace remains of his history. Nothing additional is known of him, except that he was a physician; for he is mentioned by Paul, in his Epistle to the Colossians, as “Luke, the beloved physician.” The miserable fiction of some of the papistical romances, that Luke was also a painter, and took portraits of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary,&c.is almost too shamelessly impudent to be ever mentioned; yet the venerable Cave, the only writer who has heretofore given in full the Lives of the Apostles, refers to it, without daring to deny its truth!(That Luke was also regarded by the Fathers as anapostle, is shown by the fact that, in the Synopsis ascribed to Athanasius, it is said, ‘that the gospel of Luke was dictated by the apostle Paul, and written and published by the blessedapostleand physician, Luke.’)HIS WRITINGS.But a far more valuable testimony of the character of Luke is found in those noble works which bear his name in the inspired canon. Hisgospelis characterized by remarkable distinctness of expression and clearness of conception, which, with that correctness of language by which it is distinguished above all the other books of the New Testament, conspire to make it the most easy to be understood of all the writings of the New Testament; and it has been the subject of less comment and criticism than any other of the sacred books. From the language which he uses in his preface, about those who had undertaken similar works before him, it would seem that though several unauthorized accounts of the life and discourses of Jesus were published before him, yet neither of the other gospels were known by him to have been written. He promises, by means of a thorough investigation of all facts to the sources, to give a more complete statement than had ever before been given to those for whom he wrote. Of thetimewhen he wrote it, therefore, it seems fair to conclude, that it was before the other two; but a vast number of writers have thought differently, and many other explanations of his words have been offered. Of his immediate sources of information,——the place where he wrote, and the particular person to whom he addresses it, nothing is known with sufficient certainty to be worth recording.Of theActs of the Apostles, nothing need be said in respect to the contents and object, so clear and distinct is this beautiful piece of biography, in all particulars. Its date may be fixed with exactness at the end of the second year of Paul’s first imprisonment, which, according to common calculations, is A. D. 63. It may well become the modern apostolic historian, in closing with the mention of this writing his own prolonged yet hurried work, to acknowledge the excellence, the purity, and the richness of the source from which he has thus drawn so large a portion of the materials of the greatest of these Lives. Yet what can he add to the bright testimonies accumulated through long ages, to the honor and praise of this most noble of historic records? The learned of eighteen centuries have spent the best energies of noble minds, and long studious lives, in comment and in illustration of its clear, honest truth, and its graphic beauty; the humble, inquiring Christian reader, in every age too, has found, and in every age will find, in this, the only safe and faithful outline of the great events of the apostolic history. The most perfect and permanent impression, which a long course of laborious investigation and composition has left on the author’s mind, of the task which he now lays down, exhausted yet not disgusted, is, that beyond the apostolic history of Luke, nothing can be known with certainty of the great persons of whose acts he treats, except the disconnected and floating circumstances which may be gleaned by implication from the epistles; and so marked is the transition from the pure honesty of the sacred record, to the grossness of patristic fiction, that the truth is, even to a common eye, abundantly well characterized by its own excellence. On the passages of such a narrative, the lights of♦criticism, of Biblical learning, and of contemporary history, may often be needed, to make the sometimes unconnected parts appear in their true historic relations. The writer who draws therefrom, too, the facts for a connected biography, may, in the amplifications of a modern style, perhaps more to the surprise than the admiration of his readers, quite protract the bare simplicity of the original record, “in many a winding bout of linked” wordiness, “long drawn out,”——but the modernizing extension and illustration, though it may bring small matters more prominently to the notice and perception of the reader, can never supply the place of the original,——to improve which, comment and illustration are alike vain. When will human learning and labor perfect the exposition and the illustration of the apostolic history? Its comments are written in the eternal hope of uncounted millions;——its illustrations can be fully read only in the destiny of ages. This record was the noble task of “the beloved physician;” in his own melodious language——“To give knowledge to the people, of salvation by remission of sins through the tender mercy of our God, whereby the day-spring from on high hath visited us,——to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,——to guideOURfeet in the way of peace!”♦“critiicism” replaced with “criticism”

Verylittle direct mention is made of this valuable contributor to the sacred canon, in any part of the New Testament; and those notices which seem to refer to him, are so vague, that they have been denied to have any connection with the evangelist. The name which is given in the title of his gospel is, in the original form,Lucas, a name undoubtedly of Latin origin, but shown by its final syllable to be a Hebrew-Greek corruption and abridgment of some pure Roman word; for it was customary for the New Testament writers to make these changes, to accord with their own forms of utterance. Lucas, therefore, is an abridgment of some one of two or three Roman words, either Lucius, Lucilius or Lucanus; and as the writers of that age were accustomed to write either the full or abridged form of any such name, indifferently, it seems allowable to recognize the Lucius mentioned in Acts and in the Epistle to the Romans, as the same person with the evangelist. From the manner in which this Lucius is mentioned in the last chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, it would seem that he was related to Paul by blood or marriage, since the apostle mentions him along with Jason and Sosipater, as his “kinsman.” In the beginning of the thirteenth chapter of Acts, Lucius is called “the Cyrenian,” whence his country may be inferred to have been the province of northern Africa, called Cyrene, long and early the seat of Grecian refinement, art, eloquence and philosophy, and immortalized by having given name to one of the sects of Grecian philosophers,——the Cyrenaic school, founded by Aristippus. Whether he was a Jew by birth, or a heathen, is not known, and has been much disputed. His birth and education in that seat of Grecian literature, may be reasonably considered as having contributed to that peculiar elegance of his language and style, which distinguishes him as the most correct of all the writers of the New Testament.

His relationship to Paul, (if it may be believed on so slight grounds,) was probably a reason for his accompanying him as he did through so large a portion of his travels and labors. He first speaks of himself as a companion of Paul, at the beginning of his first voyage to Europe, at Troas; and accompanies him to Philippi, where he seems to have parted from him, since, in describing the movements of the apostolic company, he no longer uses the pronoun “we.” He probably staid in or near Philippi several years, for he resumes the word, in describing Paul’s voyage from Philippi to Jerusalem. He was his companion as far as Caesarea, where he probably staid during Paul’s visit to Jerusalem; remained with him perhaps during his two years’ imprisonment in Caesarea, and was certainly his companion on his voyage to Rome. He remained with him there till a short time before his release; and is mentioned no more till Paul, in his last writing, the second epistle to Timothy, says, “Luke alone is with me.” Beyond this, not the slightest trace remains of his history. Nothing additional is known of him, except that he was a physician; for he is mentioned by Paul, in his Epistle to the Colossians, as “Luke, the beloved physician.” The miserable fiction of some of the papistical romances, that Luke was also a painter, and took portraits of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary,&c.is almost too shamelessly impudent to be ever mentioned; yet the venerable Cave, the only writer who has heretofore given in full the Lives of the Apostles, refers to it, without daring to deny its truth!

(That Luke was also regarded by the Fathers as anapostle, is shown by the fact that, in the Synopsis ascribed to Athanasius, it is said, ‘that the gospel of Luke was dictated by the apostle Paul, and written and published by the blessedapostleand physician, Luke.’)

HIS WRITINGS.

But a far more valuable testimony of the character of Luke is found in those noble works which bear his name in the inspired canon. Hisgospelis characterized by remarkable distinctness of expression and clearness of conception, which, with that correctness of language by which it is distinguished above all the other books of the New Testament, conspire to make it the most easy to be understood of all the writings of the New Testament; and it has been the subject of less comment and criticism than any other of the sacred books. From the language which he uses in his preface, about those who had undertaken similar works before him, it would seem that though several unauthorized accounts of the life and discourses of Jesus were published before him, yet neither of the other gospels were known by him to have been written. He promises, by means of a thorough investigation of all facts to the sources, to give a more complete statement than had ever before been given to those for whom he wrote. Of thetimewhen he wrote it, therefore, it seems fair to conclude, that it was before the other two; but a vast number of writers have thought differently, and many other explanations of his words have been offered. Of his immediate sources of information,——the place where he wrote, and the particular person to whom he addresses it, nothing is known with sufficient certainty to be worth recording.

Of theActs of the Apostles, nothing need be said in respect to the contents and object, so clear and distinct is this beautiful piece of biography, in all particulars. Its date may be fixed with exactness at the end of the second year of Paul’s first imprisonment, which, according to common calculations, is A. D. 63. It may well become the modern apostolic historian, in closing with the mention of this writing his own prolonged yet hurried work, to acknowledge the excellence, the purity, and the richness of the source from which he has thus drawn so large a portion of the materials of the greatest of these Lives. Yet what can he add to the bright testimonies accumulated through long ages, to the honor and praise of this most noble of historic records? The learned of eighteen centuries have spent the best energies of noble minds, and long studious lives, in comment and in illustration of its clear, honest truth, and its graphic beauty; the humble, inquiring Christian reader, in every age too, has found, and in every age will find, in this, the only safe and faithful outline of the great events of the apostolic history. The most perfect and permanent impression, which a long course of laborious investigation and composition has left on the author’s mind, of the task which he now lays down, exhausted yet not disgusted, is, that beyond the apostolic history of Luke, nothing can be known with certainty of the great persons of whose acts he treats, except the disconnected and floating circumstances which may be gleaned by implication from the epistles; and so marked is the transition from the pure honesty of the sacred record, to the grossness of patristic fiction, that the truth is, even to a common eye, abundantly well characterized by its own excellence. On the passages of such a narrative, the lights of♦criticism, of Biblical learning, and of contemporary history, may often be needed, to make the sometimes unconnected parts appear in their true historic relations. The writer who draws therefrom, too, the facts for a connected biography, may, in the amplifications of a modern style, perhaps more to the surprise than the admiration of his readers, quite protract the bare simplicity of the original record, “in many a winding bout of linked” wordiness, “long drawn out,”——but the modernizing extension and illustration, though it may bring small matters more prominently to the notice and perception of the reader, can never supply the place of the original,——to improve which, comment and illustration are alike vain. When will human learning and labor perfect the exposition and the illustration of the apostolic history? Its comments are written in the eternal hope of uncounted millions;——its illustrations can be fully read only in the destiny of ages. This record was the noble task of “the beloved physician;” in his own melodious language——“To give knowledge to the people, of salvation by remission of sins through the tender mercy of our God, whereby the day-spring from on high hath visited us,——to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,——to guideOURfeet in the way of peace!”

♦“critiicism” replaced with “criticism”

♦ERRATA.♦All errata noted in this list has been corrected in the foregoing text.Page 7, line 32, for ‘Griechische’ read ‘Griechisch.’Page 9, line 7, for ‘verse 7,’ read ‘verse 2.’Page 10, line 22, for ‘15’, read ‘25.’Page♦14, line 38, for ‘Indus,’ read ‘Euphrates.’♦“11” replaced with “14”Page 18, line 36, for ‘Pertuensis,’ read ‘Portuensis.’Page 25, line 36, for ‘dreams,’ read ‘dream.’Page 38, line 33, for ‘not,’ read ‘only once.’Page 45, line 17, delete ‘the number of’.Page 65, line 23, for ‘after,’ read ‘over;’line 37 for ‘was,’ read ‘were.’Page 67, line 39, for ‘avert,’ read ’snatch.’Page 78, line 2, for ‘have,’ read ‘has;’line 26, for ‘accounts,’ read ‘account.’Page 107, line 26, before ‘not,’ read ‘he.’Page 110, line 22, for ‘an hour,’ read ‘three hours.’Page 140, line 28, for ‘proposition,’ read ‘preposition.’Page 220, line 44, for ‘Or that,’ read ‘And by.’Page 224, line 20, after ‘sake,’ insert ‘of.’Page 225, line 25, for ‘of any,’ read ‘by any.’Page 242, line 28, for ‘Aegian,’ read ‘Aegean.’Page 249, line 34, for ‘as early as A. D. 200,’ read ‘before A. D. 100;’line 35, after ‘books,’ read ‘supposed to have been written before that translation.’Page 262, line 15, for ‘inherits,’ read ‘inherit.’Page 288, line 25, for ‘second,’ read ‘third.’Page 312, line 27, for ‘or,’ read ‘and.’Page 508, transpose ‘Lois,’ in line 31, with ‘Eunice,’ in line 35.Page 522, line 24, for ‘Nereid,’ read ‘Naiad.’Page 45, line 9, before ‘baptizer,’ insert ‘his.’Page 10, line 61, in the second Hebrew word, the final letter should be notהbutח.The statement on page 339, respecting the exposition of the Apocalypse by Clarke, appears, on a more careful investigation, to represent his views rather too decidedly as favoring the ancient interpretation. His own notes are such as unquestionably support that interpretation; but he has so far conformed to popular prejudice, as to admit on his pages some very elaborate anti-papal explanations from an anonymous writer, (J. E. C.) which, however, he is very far from adopting as his own. The uniform expression made by his own clear and learned notes, must be decidedly favorable to the ancient interpretation, and the value of his noble work is vastly enhanced by this circumstance.The view on pages 355 and 361, of the locality of Philip’s and Nathanael’s conversion, is undoubtedly erroneous. I overlooked the form of the expression——“The next day, Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip,”&c.This shows that he was still at Bethabara when he called both Philip and Nathanael.MATERIALS.In the narrative of the lives of the twelve, the author has been driven entirely to the labor of new research and composition, because the task of composing complete biographies of these personages had never before been undertaken on so large a scale. Cave’s Lives of the Apostles, the only work that has ever gone over that ground, is much more limited in object and extent than the task here undertaken, and afforded no aid whatever to the author of this work, in those biographies. Both the text and the notes of that part of the work are entirely new; nothing whatever, except a few acknowledged quotations, of those biographies, having ever appeared before on this subject. A list of the works which were resorted to in the prosecution of this new work, would fill many pages, and would answer no useful purpose, after the numerous references made to each source in connection with the passage which was thence derived. It is sufficient in justice to himself to say that all those references were made by the author himself; nor in one instance that can now be recollected, did he quote second-hand without acknowledging the intermediate source. In the second part of the work, the labor was in a field less completely occupied by previous labor. But throughout that part of the work also, the whole text of the narrative is original; and all the fruits of others’ research are, with hardly one exception, credited in the notes, both to the original, and to the medium through which they were derived. In this portion of the work, much labor has been saved, by making use of the very full illustrations given in the works of those who had preceded the author on the life of Paul, whose biography has frequently received the attention and labor of the learned.The following have been most useful in this part of the work. “Hermanni Witsii Meletemata Leidensia, Part 1. Vita Pauli Apostoli.” 4to. Leidiae, 1703.——“Der Apostel Paulus. Von J. T. Hemsen.” 8vo. Goettingen, 1830.——“Pearson’s Annals of Paul, translated, with notes, by Jackson Muspratt Williams.” 12mo. Cambridge, 1827.——Much valuable matter contained in the two first, however, was excluded by want of room.

♦All errata noted in this list has been corrected in the foregoing text.

♦“11” replaced with “14”

The statement on page 339, respecting the exposition of the Apocalypse by Clarke, appears, on a more careful investigation, to represent his views rather too decidedly as favoring the ancient interpretation. His own notes are such as unquestionably support that interpretation; but he has so far conformed to popular prejudice, as to admit on his pages some very elaborate anti-papal explanations from an anonymous writer, (J. E. C.) which, however, he is very far from adopting as his own. The uniform expression made by his own clear and learned notes, must be decidedly favorable to the ancient interpretation, and the value of his noble work is vastly enhanced by this circumstance.

The view on pages 355 and 361, of the locality of Philip’s and Nathanael’s conversion, is undoubtedly erroneous. I overlooked the form of the expression——“The next day, Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip,”&c.This shows that he was still at Bethabara when he called both Philip and Nathanael.

MATERIALS.

In the narrative of the lives of the twelve, the author has been driven entirely to the labor of new research and composition, because the task of composing complete biographies of these personages had never before been undertaken on so large a scale. Cave’s Lives of the Apostles, the only work that has ever gone over that ground, is much more limited in object and extent than the task here undertaken, and afforded no aid whatever to the author of this work, in those biographies. Both the text and the notes of that part of the work are entirely new; nothing whatever, except a few acknowledged quotations, of those biographies, having ever appeared before on this subject. A list of the works which were resorted to in the prosecution of this new work, would fill many pages, and would answer no useful purpose, after the numerous references made to each source in connection with the passage which was thence derived. It is sufficient in justice to himself to say that all those references were made by the author himself; nor in one instance that can now be recollected, did he quote second-hand without acknowledging the intermediate source. In the second part of the work, the labor was in a field less completely occupied by previous labor. But throughout that part of the work also, the whole text of the narrative is original; and all the fruits of others’ research are, with hardly one exception, credited in the notes, both to the original, and to the medium through which they were derived. In this portion of the work, much labor has been saved, by making use of the very full illustrations given in the works of those who had preceded the author on the life of Paul, whose biography has frequently received the attention and labor of the learned.

The following have been most useful in this part of the work. “Hermanni Witsii Meletemata Leidensia, Part 1. Vita Pauli Apostoli.” 4to. Leidiae, 1703.——“Der Apostel Paulus. Von J. T. Hemsen.” 8vo. Goettingen, 1830.——“Pearson’s Annals of Paul, translated, with notes, by Jackson Muspratt Williams.” 12mo. Cambridge, 1827.——Much valuable matter contained in the two first, however, was excluded by want of room.

Back to Index Next