Ἀρίσταρχος] the Thessalonian. He had started with St Paul on his voyage from Jerusalem to Rome, but probably had parted from the Apostle at Myra (see Philippians p. 33 sq.). If so, he must have rejoined him at Rome at a later date. On this Aristarchus see Philippians p. 10 and the introduction to the Epistles to the Thessalonians. He would be well known in proconsular Asia, which he had visited from time to time; Acts xix. 29, xx. 4, xxvii. 2.
συναιχμάλωτός μου] In Philem. 23 this honourable title is withheld from Aristarchus and given to Epaphras. In Rom. xvi. 7 St Paul’s kinsmen, Andronicus and Junias, are so called. On the possibility of its referring to a spiritual captivity or subjection see Philippians p. 11. In favour of this meaning it may be urged, that, though St Paul as a prisoner was truly a δέσμιος, he was not strictly an αἰχμάλωτος ‘a prisoner of war’; nor could he have called himself so, except by a confusion of the actual and metaphorical. If on the other hand συναιχμάλωτος refers to a physical captivity, it cannot easily be explained by any known fact. The incident in Acts xix. 29 is hardly adequate. The most probable solution would be, that his relations with St Paul in Rome excited suspicion and led to a temporary confinement. Another possible hypothesis is that he voluntarily shared the Apostle’s captivity by living with him.
Μάρκος] doubtless John Mark, who had been associated with St Paul in his earlier missionary work; Acts xii. 25, xv. 37 sq. This commendatory notice is especially interesting as being the first mention of him since the separation some twelve years before, Acts xv. 39. In the later years of the Apostle’s life he entirely effaced the unfavourable impression left by his earlier desertion; 2 Tim. iv. 11 ἔστιν γάρ μοι εὔχρηστος εἰς διακονίαν.
This notice is likewise important in two other respects. (1) Mark appears here as commended to a church of proconsular Asia, and intending to visit those parts. To the churches of this same region he sends a salutation in 1 Pet. v. 13; and in this district apparently also he is found some few years later than the present time, 2 Tim. iv. 11. (2) Mark is now residing at Rome. His connexion with the metropolis appears also from 1 Pet. v. 13, if Βαβυλῶν there (as seems most probable) be rightly interpreted of Rome; and early tradition speaks of his Gospel as having been written for the Romans (Iren. iii. 1. 1; comp. Papias in Euseb. H.E. iii. 39).
IV. 10]
[← ] 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.