μου, καὶ Μάρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρνάβα, περὶ οὗ ἐλάβετε
ὁ ἀνεψιὸς] ‘_the cousin_’. The term ἀνεψιοί is applied to cousins
german, the children whether of two brothers or of two sisters or of a
brother and sister, as it is carefully defined in Pollux iii. 28. This
writer adds that αὐτανέψιοι means neither more nor less than ἀνεψιοί. As
a synonyme we find ἐξάδελφος, which however is condemned as a vulgarism;
Phryn. p. 306 (ed. Lobeck). Many instances of ἀνεψιοί are found in
different authors of various ages (e.g. Herod, vii. 5, 82, ix. 10,
Thucyd. i. 132, Plato _Charm._ 154 B, _Gorg._ 471 B, Andoc. _de Myst._ §
47, Isæus _Hagn. Her._ § 8 sq., Demosth. _c. Macart._ § 24, 27, etc.,
Dion. Hal. _A. R._ i. 79, Plut. _Vit. Thes._ 7, _Vit. Cæs._ 1, _Vit.
Brut._ 13, Lucian _Dial. Mort._ xxix. 1, Hegesipp. in Euseb. _H.E._ iv.
22), where the relationship is directly defined or already known, and
there is no wavering as to the meaning. This sense also it has in the
LXX, Num. xxxvi. 11. In very late writers however (e.g. Io. Malalas
_Chron._ xvii. p. 424, Io. Damasc. _adv. Const. Cab._ 12, II. p. 621;
but in Theodt. _H.E._ v. 39, which is also quoted by E. A. Sophocles
_Gr. Lex._ s.v. for this meaning, the text is doubtful) the word comes
to be used for a nephew, properly ἀδελφιδοῦς; and to this later use the
rendering of our English versions must be traced. The German
translations also (Luther and the Zürich) have ‘Neffe’. The earliest of
the ancient versions (Latin, Syriac, Egyptian) seem all to translate it
correctly; not so in every case apparently the later. There is no reason
to suppose that St Paul would or could have used it in any other than
its proper sense. St Mark’s relationship with Barnabas may have been
through his mother Mary, who is mentioned Acts xii. 12. The incidental
notice here explains why Barnabas should have taken a more favourable
view of Mark’s defection than St Paul, Acts xv. 37–39. The notices in
this passage and in 2 Tim. iv. 11 show that Mark had recovered the
Apostle’s good opinion. The studious recommendation of St Mark in both
passages indicates a desire to efface the unfavourable impression of the
past.
The name of Mark occurs in five different relations, as (1) The early
disciple, John Mark, Acts xii. 12, 25, xv. 39; (2) The later companion
of St Paul, here and Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11; (3) The companion and
‘son’ of St Peter, 1 Pet. v. 13; (4) The evangelist; (5) The bishop of
Alexandria. Out of these notices some writers get three or even four
distinct persons (see the note of Cotelier on _Apost. Const._ ii. 57).
Even Tillemont (_Mem. Eccl._ II. p. 89 sq., 503 sq.) assumes two Marks,
supposing (1) (2) to refer to one person, and (3) (4) (5) to another.
His main reason is that he cannot reconcile the notices of the first
with the tradition (Euseb. _H.E._ ii. 15, 16) that St Mark the
evangelist accompanied St Peter to Rome in A. D. 43, having first
preached the Gospel in Alexandria (p. 515). To most persons however this
early date of St Peter’s visit to Rome will appear quite irreconcilable
with the notices in the Apostolic writings, and therefore with them
Tillemont’s argument will carry no weight. But in fact Eusebius does not
say, either that St Mark went _with_ St Peter to Rome, or that he had
preached in Alexandria _before_ this. The Scriptural notices suggest
that the same Mark is intended in all the occurrences of the name, for
they are connected together by personal links (Peter, Paul, Barnabas);
and the earliest forms of tradition likewise identify them.
Βαρνάβα] On the affectionate tone of St Paul’s language, whenever he
mentions Barnabas after the collision at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sq.) and
the separation of missionary spheres (Acts xv. 39), see the note on Gal.
ii. 13. It has been inferred from the reference here, that inasmuch as
Mark has rejoined St Paul, Barnabas must have died before this epistle
was written (about A. D. 63); and this has been used as an argument
against the genuineness of the letter bearing his name (Hefele
_Sendschr. d. Apost. Barnab._ p. 29 sq.); but this argument is somewhat
precarious. From 1 Cor. ix. 6 we may infer that he was still living, A.
D. 57. The notices bearing on the biography of Barnabas are collected
and discussed by Hefele, p. 1 sq.
ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς] These injunctions must have been communicated
previously either by letter or by word of mouth: for it cannot be a
question here of an epistolary aorist. The natural inference is, that
they were sent by St Paul himself, and not by any one else, e.g. by St
Peter or St Barnabas, as some have suggested. Thus the notice points to
earlier communications between the Apostle and Colossæ.
But what was their tenour? It seems best to suppose that this is given
in the next clause ἐὰν ἔλθῃ κ.τ.λ. By an abrupt change to the _oratio
recta_ the injunction is repeated as it was delivered; comp. Ps. cv
(civ). 15 ἤλεγξεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν βασιλεῖς· μὴ ἅψησθε κ.τ.λ. After verbs
signifying ‘to command, charge, etc.’, there is a tendency to pass from
the oblique to the direct; e.g. Luke v. 14, Acts i. 4, xxiii. 22. The
reading δέξασθαι gives the right sense, but can hardly be correct. If
this construction be not accepted, it is vain to speculate what may have
been the tenour of the injunction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------