J. B. Lightfoot on Colossians 4:10

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. 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.