Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ

by David Francis Bacon

The particular species or variety of goat, which is thus described as anciently inhabiting the mountains of Cilicia, can not now be distinctly ascertained, because no scientific traveler has ever made observations on the animals of that region, owing to the many difficulties in the way of any exploration of Asia Minor, under the barbarous Ottoman sway. Neither Griffith’s Cuvier nor Turton’s Linnaeus contains any reference to Cilicia, as inhabited by any species or variety of the genus Capra. The nearest approach to certainty, that can be made with so few data, is the reasonable conjecture that the Cilician goat was a variety of the species Capra Aegagrus, to which the common domestic goat belongs, and which includes several remarkable varieties,——at least six being well ascertained. There are few of my readers, probably, who are not familiar with the descriptions and pictures of the famous Angora goat, which is one of these varieties, and is well-known for its long, soft, silky hair, which is to this day used in the manufacture of a sort of camlet, in the place where it is found, which is Angora and the region around it, from the Halys to the Sangarius. This tract of country is in Asia Minor, only three or four hundred miles north of Cilicia, and therefore at once suggests the probability of the Cilician goat being something very much like the Angora goat. (See Modern Traveler, III. p. 339.) On the other side of Cilicia also, in Syria, there is an equally remarkable variety of the goat, with similar long, silky hair, used for the same manufacture. Now Cilicia, being directly on the shortest route from Angora to Syria, and half-way between both, might very naturally be supposed to have another variety of the Capra Aegagrus, between the Angoran and the Syrian variety, and resembling both in the common characteristic of long shaggy or silky hair; and there can be no reasonable doubt that future scientific observation will show that the Cilician goat forms another well-marked variety of this widely diffused species, which, wherever it inhabits the mountains of the warm regions of Asia, always furnishes this beautiful product, of which we have another splendid and familiar specimen in the Tibet and Cashmere goats, whose fleeces are worth more than their weight in gold. The hair of the Syrian and Cilician goats, however, is of a much coarser character, producing a much coarser and stouter fibre for the cloth.

On the subject of Paul’s trade, the learned and usually accurate Michaelis was led into a very great error, by taking up too hastily a conjecture founded on a misapprehension of the meaning given by Julius Pollux, in his Onomasticon, on the word σκηνοποιος (skenopoios,) which is the word used in Acts xiii. 3, to designate the trade of Saul and Aquilas. Pollux mentions that in the language of the old Grecian comedy, σκηνοποιος was equivalent to μηχανοποιος, (mechanopoios,) which Michaelis very erroneously takes in the sense of “a maker of mechanical instruments,” and this he therefore maintains to have been the trade of Saul and Aquilas. But it is capable of the most satisfactory proof, that Julius Pollux used the words here merely in the technical sense of theatrical preparation,——the first meaning simply “a scene-maker,” and the second “a constructor of theatrical machinery,”——both terms, of course, naturally applied to the same artist. (Michaelis, Introduction, IV. xxiii. 2. pp. 183–186. Marsh’s translation.——Hug, II. § 85, original; § 80, translation.)

The Fathers also made similar blunders about the nature of Saul’s trade. They call him σκυτοτομος, (skutotomos,) “a skin-cutter,” as well as σκηνορραφος, “a tent-maker.” This was because they were entirely ignorant of the material used for the manufacture of tents; for, living themselves in the civilized regions of Greece, Italy, &c. they knew nothing of the habitations of the Nomadic tent-dwellers. Chrysostom in particular, calls him “one who worked in skins.”

Fabricius gives some valuable illustrations of this point. (Bibliotheca Graeca, IV. p. 795, bb.) He quotes Cotelerius, (ad. Apost. Const. II. 63,) Erasmus, &c. (ad Acts xviii. 3,) and Schurzfleisch, (in diss. de Paulo, &c.) who brings sundry passages from Dio Chrysostom and Libanius, to prove that there were many in Cilicia who worked in leather, as he says; in support of which he quotes Martial, (epigraph xiv. 114,) alluding to “udones cilicii,” or “cilician cloaks,” (used to keep off rain, as water-proof,)——not knowing that this word, cilicium, was the name of a very close and stout cloth, from the goat’s hair, equally valuable as a covering for a single person, and for the habitation of a whole family. In short, Martial’s passage shows that the Cilician camlet was used like the modern camlet,——for cloaks. Fabricius himself seems to make no account of this leather notion of Schurzfleisch; for immediately after, he states (what I can not find on any other authority) that “even at this day, as late books of travels testify, variegated cloths are exported from Cilicia.” This is certainly true of Angora in Asia Minor, north-west of Cilicia, (Modern Traveler, III. p. 339,) and may be true of Cilicia itself. Fabricius notices 2 Corinthians v. 1: and xii. 9, as containing figures drawn from Saul’s trade.

HIS EDUCATION.

But this was not destined to be the most important occupation of Saul’s life. Even his parents had nobler objects in view for him, and evidently devoted him to this handicraft, only in conformity with those ancient Jewish usages which had the force of law on every true Israelite, whether rich or poor; and accordingly he was sent, while yet in his youth, away from his home in Tarsus, to Jerusalem, the fountain of religious and legal knowledge to all the race of Judah and Benjamin, throughout the world. To what extent his general education had been carried in Tarsus, is little known; but he had acquired that fluency in the Greek, which is displayed in his writings, though contaminated with many of the provincialisms of Cilicia, and more especially with the barbarisms of Hebrew usage. Living in daily intercourse, both in the way of business and friendship, with the active Grecians of that thriving city, and led, no doubt, by his own intellectual character and tastes, to the occasional cultivation of those classics which were the delight of his Gentile acquaintances, he acquired a readiness and power in the use of the Greek language, and a familiarity with the favorite writers of the Asian Hellenes, that in the providence of God most eminently fitted him for the sphere to which he was afterwards devoted, and was the true ground of his wonderful acceptability to the highly literary people among whom his greatest and most successful labors were performed, and to whom all of his epistles, but two, were written. All these writings show proofs of such an acquaintance with Greek, as is here inferred from his opportunities in education. His well-known quotations also from Menander and Epimenides, and more especially his happy impromptu reference in his discourse at Athens, to the line from his own fellow-Cilician, Aratus, are instances of a very great familiarity with the classics, and are thrown out in such an unstudied, off-hand way, as to imply a ready knowledge of these writers. But all these were, no doubt, learned in the mere occasional manner already alluded to in connection with the reputation and literary character of Tarsus. He was devoted by all the considerations of ancestral pride and religious zeal to the study of “a classic, the best the world has ever seen,——the noblest that has ever honored and dignified the language of mortals.”

HIS REMOVAL TO JERUSALEM.

Strabo, in speaking of the remarkable literary and philosophical zeal of the refined inhabitants of Tarsus, says that “after having well laid the foundations of literature and science in their own schools at home, it was usual for them to resort to those in other places, in order to zealously pursue the cultivation of their minds still further,” by the varied modes and opportunities presented in different schools throughout the Hellenic world,——a noble spirit of literary enterprise, accordant with the practice of the most ancient philosophers, and like the course also pursued by the modern German scholars, many of whom go from one university to another, to enjoy the peculiar advantages afforded by each in some particular department. It was therefore, only in a noble emulation of the example of his heathen fellow-townsmen, in the pursuit of profane knowledge, that Saul left the city of his birth and his father’s house, to seek a deeper knowledge of the sacred sources of Hebrew learning, in the capital of the faith. This removal to so great a distance, for such a purpose, evidently implies the possession of considerable wealth in the family of Saul; for a literary sojourn of that kind, in a great city, could not but be attended with very considerable expense as well as trouble.

HIS TEACHER.

Saul having been thus endowed with a liberal education at home, and with the principles of the Jewish faith, as far as his age would allow,——went up to Jerusalem to enjoy the instruction of Gamaliel. There is every reason to believe that this was Gamaliel the elder, grandson of Hillel, and son of Simeon, (probably the same, who, in his old age, took the child Jesus in his arms,) and father of another Simeon, in whose time the temple was destroyed; for the Rabbinical writings give a minute account of him, as connected with all these persons. This Gamaliel succeeded his ancestors in the rank which was then esteemed the highest; this was the office of “head of the college,” otherwise called “Prince of the Jewish senate.” Out of respect to this most eminent Father of Hebrew learning, as it is recorded, Onkelos, the renowned Chaldee paraphrast, burned at his funeral, seventy pounds of incense, in honor to the high rank and learning of the deceased. This eminent teacher was at first not ill-disposed towards the apostles, who, he thought, ought to be left to their own fate; being led to this moderate and reasonable course, perhaps, by the circumstance that the Sadducees, whom he hated, were most active in their persecution. The sound sense and humane wisdom that mark his sagely eloquent opinion, so wonderful in that bloody time, have justly secured him the admiration and respect of all Christian readers of the record; and not without regret would they learn, that the after doings of his life, unrecorded by the sacred historian, yet on the testimony of others, bear witness against him as having changed from this wise principle of action. If there is any ground for the story which Maimonides tells, it would seem, that when Gamaliel saw the new heretical sect multiplying in his own days, and drawing away the Israelites from the Mosaic forms, he, together with the Senate, whose President he was, gave his utmost endeavors to crush the followers of Christ, and composed a form of prayer, by which God was besought to exterminate these heretics; which was to be connected to the usual forms of prayer in the Jewish liturgy. This story of Maimonides, if it is adopted as true, on so slight grounds, may be reconciled with the account given by Luke, in two ways. First, Gamaliel may have thought that the apostles and their successors, although heretics, were not to be put down by human force, or by the contrivances of human ingenuity, but that the whole matter should be left to the hidden providence of God, and that their extermination should be obtained from God by prayers. Or, second,——to make a more simple and rational supposition,——he may have been so struck by the boldness of the apostles, and by the evidence of the miracle performed by them, as to express a milder opinion on them at that particular moment; but afterwards may have formed a harsher judgment, when, contrary to all expectation, he saw the wonderful growth of Christianity, and heard with wrath and uncontrollable indignation, the stern rebuke of Stephen. But these loose relics of tradition, offered on such very suspicious authority as that of a Jew of the ages when Christianity had become so odious to Judaism by its triumphs, may without hesitation be rejected as wholly inconsistent with the noble spirit of Gamaliel, as expressed in the clear, impartial account of Luke; and both of the suppositions here offered by others, to reconcile sacred truth with mere falsehood, are thus rendered entirely unnecessary.