Full Download (Ebook PDF) Introductory Mathematics For Engineering Applications PDF
Full Download (Ebook PDF) Introductory Mathematics For Engineering Applications PDF
Full Download (Ebook PDF) Introductory Mathematics For Engineering Applications PDF
OR CLICK LINK
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-
introductory-mathematics-for-engineering-
applications/
Download More ebooks [PDF]. Format PDF ebook download PDF KINDLE.
Full download test bank at ebooksecure.com
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
https://ebooksecure.com/download/engineering-mathematics-for-
semesters-iii-and-iv-ebook-pdf/
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-introductory-technical-
mathematics-7th-edition-2/
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-introductory-technical-
mathematics-7th-edition/
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-applied-engineering-
mathematics/
Engineering Mathematics I - eBook PDF
https://ebooksecure.com/download/engineering-mathematics-i-ebook-
pdf/
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-matlab-for-engineering-
applications-4th-edition/
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-advanced-engineering-
mathematics-5th-edition/
http://ebooksecure.com/product/advanced-engineering-
mathematics-6th-edition-ebook-pdf/
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-advanced-engineering-
mathematics-5th-edition-2/
Kuldip S. Rattan + Nathan W. Klingbeil
Introductory
Mathematics for
Engineering Applications
Preface
vi
Preface vii
motivation for the required calculus sequence could easily integrate selected topics
into an existing freshman engineering course without having to find room in the
curriculum for additional credit hours. Finally, this book would provide an outstand-
ing resource for nontraditional students returning to school from the workplace, for
students who are undecided or are considering a switch to engineering from another
major, for math and science teachers or education majors seeking physical contexts
for their students, or for upper-level high school students who are thinking about
studying engineering in college. For all of these students, this book represents a one-
stop shop for how math is really used in engineering.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank all those who have contributed to the development
of this text. This includes their outstanding staff of TA’s, who have not only pro-
vided numerous suggestions and revisions, but also played a critical role in the success
of the first-year engineering math program at Wright State University. The authors
would also like to thank their many colleagues and collaborators who have joined in
their nationwide quest to change the way math is taught to engineers. Special thanks
goes to Jennifer Serres, Werner Klingbeil and Scott Molitor, who have contributed
a variety of worked examples and homework problems from their own engineering
disciplines. Thanks also to Josh Deaton, who has provided detailed solutions to all
end-of-chapter problems. Finally, the authors would like to thank their wives and
families, whose unending patience and support have made this effort possible.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Founda-
tion under Grant Numbers EEC-0343214, DUE-0618571, DUE-0622466 and DUE-
0817332. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in
this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
National Science Foundation.
viii
Straight Lines in CHAPTER
1
Engineering
t, s v(t), m/s
1.5 9.75
2.5 5.85
1
2 Chapter 1 Straight Lines in Engineering
Therefore, the slope m = a can be calculated using the data in Fig. 1.1 as
v2 − v1 5.85 − 9.75
a= = = −3.9 m/s2 .
t2 − t1 2.5 − 1.5
The velocity of the vehicle can now be written in the slope-intercept form as
v(t) = −3.9 t + vo .
The y-intercept b = vo can be determined using either one of the data points. Using
the data point (t, v) = (1.5, 9.75) gives
9.75 = −3.9 (1.5) + vo .
Solving for vo gives
vo = 15.6 m/s.
The y-intercept b = vo can also be determined using the other data point (t, v) =
(2.5, 5.85), yielding
5.85 = −3.9 (2.5) + vo .
Solving for vo gives
vo = 15.6 m/s.
The velocity of the vehicle can now be written as
v(t) = −3.9 t + 15.6 m/s.
The total stopping time (time required to reach v(t) = 0) can be found by equating
v(t) = 0, which gives
0 = −3.9 t + 15.6.
Solving for t, the stopping time is found to be t = 4.0 s. Figure 1.2 shows the velocity of
the vehicle after braking. Note that the stopping time t = 4.0 s and the initial velocity
Velocity, m/s
1
a 3.90 m/s2
Stopping time
(x -intercept)
0
t, s
0 4.0
vo = 15.6 m/s are the x- and y-intercepts of the line, respectively. Also, note that the
slope of the line m = −3.90 m/s2 is the acceleration of the vehicle during braking.
I
R VR
Vs , V I, A
VS
10.0 0.1
V 20.0 1.1
VS , V
20
10 R
1
10
V 9V
0 I, A
0 0.1 1.1
Figure 1.4 Voltage-current relationship for the data given in Fig. 1.3.
1.2 Voltage-Current Relationship in a Resistive Circuit 5
y-intercept can be found from the data given in Fig. 1.3 using the slope-intercept
method as
Δy ΔI
m= = .
Δ x Δ Vs
Using the data in Fig. 1.3, the slope m can be found as
1.1 − 0.1
m= = 0.1.
20 − 10
Therefore, the current I can be written in slope-intercept form as
I = 0.1 Vs + b.
The y-intercept b can be determined using either one of the data points. Using the
data point (Vs , I) = (10, 0.1) gives
0.1 = 0.1 (10) + b.
Solving for b gives
b = −0.9.
Therefore, the equation of the straight line can be written in the slope-intercept form
as
I = 0.1 Vs − 0.9. (1.7)
Comparing equations (1.6) and (1.7) gives
1
= 0.1 ⇒ R = 10 Ω
R
and
V
− = −0.9 ⇒ V = 0.9 (10) = 9 V.
R
Figure 1.5 is the graph of the straight line I = 0.1Vs − 0.9. Note that the y-intercept
V 1
is − = − 0.9 A and the slope is = 0.1.
R R
I, A
1.1
0.1
0.1 1
0 VS ,V
0 10 20
y-intercept
0.9
Figure 1.5 Straight line with I as independent variable for the data given in Fig. 1.3.
6 Chapter 1 Straight Lines in Engineering
f = k y + fo , (1.8)
where f is the force in Newtons (N), y is the displacement in meters (m), and k is the
spring constant in N/m.
y f, N y, m
f 1 0.1
k 5 0.9
The objective is to find the spring constant k and the preload fo , if the values of the
force and displacement are as given in Fig. 1.6.
f = 5y + b.
The y-intercept b can be found using one of the data points. Using the data point
(f , y) = (5, 0.9) gives
5 = 5 (0.9) + b.
b = 0.5 N.
Therefore, the equation of the straight line can be written in slope-intercept form as
f = 5y + 0.5. (1.9)
k = 5N∕m, fo = 0.5N.
1.3 Force-Displacement in a Preloaded Tension Spring 7
y = 0.2f + b.
The y-intercept b can be found using one of the data points. Using the data point
(y, f ) = (0.9, 5) gives
b = −0.1.
Therefore, the equation of the straight line can be written in the slope-intercept form
as
1 f
Comparing equation (1.10) with the expression y = f − o gives
k k
1
= 0.2 ⇒ k = 5 N/m
k
and
fo
− = −0.1 ⇒ fo = 0.1 (5) = 0.5 N.
k
Therefore, the force-displacement relationship for a preloaded spring given in
Fig. 1.6 is given by
f = 5y + 0.5.
8 Chapter 1 Straight Lines in Engineering
Example The velocity of a vehicle follows the trajectory shown in Fig. 1.7. The vehicle starts
1-1 at rest (zero velocity) and reaches a maximum velocity of 10 m/s in 2 s. It then
cruises at a constant velocity of 10 m/s for 2 s before coming to rest at 6 s. Write the
equation of the function v(t); in other words, write the expression of v(t) for times
between 0 and 2 s, between 2 and 4 s, between 4 and 6 s, and greater than 6 s.
v(t), m/s
10
t, s
0 2 4 6
Solution The velocity profile of the vehicle shown in Fig. 1.7 is a piecewise linear function
with three different equations. The first linear function is a straight line passing
through the origin starting at time 0 sec and ending at time equal to 2 s. The second
linear function is a straight line with zero slope (cruise velocity of 10 m/s) starting
at 2 s and ending at 4 s. Finally, the third piece of the trajectory is a straight line
starting at 4 s and ending at 6 s. The equation of the piecewise linear function can
be written as
(a) 0 ≤ t ≤ 2:
v(t) = mt + b
10 − 0
where b = 0 and m = = 5. Therefore,
2−0
v(t) = 5t m/s.
(b) 2 ≤ t ≤ 4:
v = 10 m/s.
(c) 4 ≤ t ≤ 6:
v(t) = mt + b,
0 − 10
where m = = −5 and the value of b can be calculated using the data
6−4
point (t, v(t)) = (6, 0) as
0 = −5 (6) + b ⇒ b = 0 + 30 = 30.
1.4 Further Examples of Lines in Engineering 9
The value of b can also be calculated using the point-slope formula for the
straight line
v − v1 = m(t − t1 ),
where v1 = 0 and t1 = 6. Thus,
v − 0 = −5(t − 6).
Therefore,
v(t), m/s
24
12
t, s
0 3 6 9
Solution (a) The velocity of the vehicle for different intervals can be calculated as
(i) 0 ≤ t ≤ 3 s:
v(t) = mt + b,
12 − 24
where m = = −4 m/s2 and b = 24 m/s. Therefore,
3−0
v(t) = −4t + 24 m/s.
(ii) 3 ≤ t ≤ 6 s:
v(t) = 12 m/s.
(iii) 6 ≤ t ≤ 9 s:
v(t) = mt + b,
0 − 12
where m = = −4 m/s2 and b can be calculated in slope-intercept
9−6
form using point (t, v(t)) = (9, 0) as
0 = −4(9) + b.
Therefore, b = 36 m/s and
v(t) = −4t + 36 m/s.
(iv) t > 9 s:
v(t) = 0 m/s.
(b) Since the acceleration of the vehicle is the slope of the velocity in each interval,
the acceleration a in m/s2 is given by
⎧−4; 0≤t≤3s
⎪
⎪ 0; 3≤t≤6s
a=⎨
⎪−4; 6≤t≤9s
⎪ 0; t>9s
⎩
The plot of the acceleration is shown in Fig. 1.9.
Acceleration, m/s2
t, s
0 3 6 9
Example In a bolted connector shown in Fig. 1.10, the force in the bolt Fb is related to the
1-3 external load P as
Fb = C P + Fi ,
where C is the joint constant and Fi is the preload in the bolt.
(a) Determine the joint constant C and the preload Fi given the data in Fig. 1.10.
(b) Plot the bolt force Fb as a function of the external load P, and label C and Fi
on the graph.
P (l(b) Fb (l(b)
400 500
800 600
Fb (lb)
Fi 400
P (lb)
0 400 800
Figure 1.11 Plot of the bolt force Fb as a function of the external load P.
Example For the electric circuit shown in Fig. 1.12, the relationship between the voltage V
1-4 and the applied current I is given by V = (I + Io )R. Find the values of R and I0 if
the voltage across the resistor V is known for the two different values of the current
I as shown in Fig. 1.12.
I, amp V, volt
I R Io V 0.1 1.2
0.2 2.2
which gives
I0 = 0.02 A.
Therefore, V = 10 I + 0.2; and R = 10 Ω and I0 = 0.02 A.
100 kΩ
R kΩ vin , V vo , V
5 5
10 −5
vin vo
vb OP−AMP
vo, V
y−intercept b 3, vb 15 V
15
5 100
m 2
R
vin, V
0 5 10
5
x−intercept 7.5 V
Example An actuator used in a prosthetic arm (Fig. 1.15) can produce a different amount of
1-6 force by changing the voltage of the power supply. The force and voltage satisfy the
linear relation F = kV, where V is the voltage applied and F is the force produced
by the prosthetic arm. The maximum force the arm can produce is F = 44.5 N when
supplied with V = 12 volts.
(a) Find the force produced by the actuator when supplied with V = 7.3 volts.
(b) What voltage is needed to achieve a force of F = 6.0 N?
(c) Using the results of parts (a) and (b), sketch the graph of F as a function of
voltage V. Use the appropriate scales and clearly label the slope and the results
of parts (a) and (b) on your graph.
F = 3.71 V. (1.14)
Thus, the force produced by the actuator when supplied with 7.3 volts is found
by substituting V = 7.3 in equation (1.14) as
F = 3.71 × 7.3
= 27.08 N.
(b) The voltage needed to achieve a force of 6.0 N can be found by substituting
F = 6.0 N in equation (1.14) as
6.0 = 3.71 V
6.0
V=
3.71
= 1.62 volts. (1.15)
(c) The plot of force F as a function of voltage V can now be drawn as shown in
Fig. 1.16.
F, N
44.5
27.1 m k 3.71
6.0
V, volt
0 1.62 7.3 12
Figure 1.16 Plot of the actuator force verses the applied voltage.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
This mystical error is distinctly characterized in the first chapter of
this gospel, and is there met by the direct assertions, that in Jesus
Christ, the Word, and the God, was not only life, but that the life
itself was the light of men;――and that John the Baptist “was not
the Light, but was only sent to bear witness of the Light;” and
again, with all the tautological earnestness of an old man, the aged
writer repeats the assertion that “this was the true Light, which
enlightens every man that comes into the world.” Against these
same sectaries, the greater part of the first chapter is directed
distinctly, and the whole tendency of the work throughout, is in a
marked manner opposed to their views. With them too, John had
had a local connection, by his residence in Ephesus, where, as it is
distinctly specified in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul had found the
peculiar disciples of John the Baptist long before, on his first visit to
that city; and had successfully preached to some of them, the
religion of Christ, which before was a strange and new thing to them.
The whole tendency and scope of this gospel, indeed, as directed
against these two prominent classes of heretics, both Gnostics and
Sabians, are fully and distinctly summed up in the conclusion of the
twentieth chapter;――“These things are written, that ye might
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that in
believing on him, ye might have life through his name.”
All that has been said on the character and the objects of the
gospel, may be exactly applied to this very similar production. So
completely does it resemble John’s gospel, in style, language,
doctrines and tendencies, that even a superficial reader might be
ready to pronounce, on a common examination, that they were
written in the same circumstances and with the same object. This
has been the conclusion at which the most learned critics have
arrived, after a full investigation of the peculiarities of both,
throughout; and the standard opinion now is, that they were both
written at the same time and for the same persons. Some reasons
have been given by high critical authority, for supposing that they
were both written at Patmos, and sent together to Ephesus,――the
epistle serving as a preface, dedication, and accompaniment of the
gospel, to those for whom it was intended, and commending the
prominent points in it to their particular attention. This beautiful and
satisfactory view of the object and occasion of the epistle, may
certainly be adopted with great propriety and justice; but in regard to
the places of its composition and direction, a different view is much
more probable, as well as more consistent with the notion, already
presented above, of the date and place of the gospel. It is very
reasonable to suppose that the epistle was written some years after
John’s return to Ephesus,――that it was intended, (along with the
gospel, for the churches of Asia generally, to whom John hoped to
make an apostolic pastoral visit, shortly,) to confirm them in the faith,
as he announces in the conclusion. There is not a single
circumstance in gospel or epistle, which should lead any one to
believe that they were directed to Ephesus in particular. On the
contrary, the total absence of anything like a personal or local
direction to the epistle, shows the justice of its common title, that it is
a “general epistle,” a circular, in short, to all the churches under his
special apostolic supervision,――for whose particular dangers,
errors and necessities, he had written the gospel just sent forth, and
to whom he now minutely commended that work, in the very opening
words of his letter, referring as palpably and undeniably to his
gospel, as any words can express. “Of that which ‘was from the
beginning, of the Word,’ which I have heard, which I have seen with
my eyes, which I have looked upon, which my hands have
handled,――of the Word of Life” &c.; particularizing with all the
minute verbosity of old age, his exact knowledge of the facts which
he gives in his gospel, assuring them thus of the accuracy of his
descriptions. The question concerns his reputation for fidelity as a
historian; and it is easy to see therefore, why he should labor thus to
impress on his readers his important personal advantages for
knowing exactly all the facts he treats of, and all the doctrines which
he gives at such length in the discourses of Christ. Again and again
he says, “I write,” and “I have written,” recapitulating the sum of the
doctrines which he has designed to inculcate; and he particularizes
still farther that he has written to all classes and ages, from the
oldest to the youngest, intending his gospel for the benefit of all. “I
have written to you, fathers,”――“unto you, young men,”――“unto
you, little children,” &c. What else can this imply, than a dedication of
the work concerning “the WORD,” to all stations and ages,――to the
whole of the Christian communities, to whom he commits and
recommends his writings;――as he writes “to the
fathers――because they know him who was from the
beginning,”――in the same way “to the young men, because they
are constant, and the Word of God dwells in them,” and “that the
doctrine they have received may remain unchangeable in them,” and
“on account of those who would seduce them.” He recapitulates
all the leading doctrines of his gospel,――the Messiahship, and the
Divinity of Jesus,――his Unity, and identity with the divine
abstractions of the Gnostic theology. Here too, he inculcates and
renewedly urges the great feeling of Christian brotherly love, which
so decidedly characterizes the discourses of Jesus, as reported in
his gospel. So perfect was the connection of origin and design,
between the gospel and this accompanying letter, that they were
anciently placed together, the epistle immediately following the
gospel; as is indubitably proved by certain marks in ancient
manuscripts.
It was mentioned, in connection with a former part of John’s life, that this epistle is
quoted by Augustin and others, under the title of the epistle to the Parthians. It seems very
probable that this may have been also addressed to those churches in the east, about
Babylon, which had certainly suffered much under the attacks of these same mystical
heretics. It is explained, however, by some, that this was an accidental corruption in the
copying of the Greek.――The second epistle was quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, under
the title of “the epistle to the virgins,” προς παρθενους, which, as some of the modern critics
say, must have been accidentally changed to παρθους, by dropping some of the syllables,
and afterwards transferred to the first (!) as more appropriate;――a perfectly unauthorized
conjecture, and directly in the face of all rules of criticism.
These are both evidently private letters from John to two of his
intimate personal friends, of whose circumstances nothing whatever
being known, except what is therein contained, the notice of these
brief writings must necessarily be brief also. They are both honorably
referred to, as entertainers of the servants of Jesus Christ as they
travel from place to place, and seem to have been residents in some
of the Asian cities within John’s apostolic circuit, and probably
received him kindly and reverently into their houses on his tours of
duty; and them he was about to visit again shortly. The second
epistle is directed to a Christian female, who, being designated by
the very honorable title of “lady,” was evidently a person of rank; and
from the remark towards the conclusion, about the proper objects of
her hospitality, it is plain that she must have been also a person of
some property. Mention is made of her children as also objects of
warm affection to the aged apostle; and as no other member of her
family is noticed, it is reasonable to conclude that she was a widow.
The contents of this short letter are a mere transcript, almost
verbatim, of some important points in the first, inculcating Christian
love, and watchfulness against deceivers;――(no doubt the
Gnostical heretics,――the Cerinthians and Nicolaitans.) He
apologizes for the shortness of the letter, by saying that he hopes
shortly to visit her; and ends by communicating the affectionate
greetings of her sister’s children, then residents in Ephesus, or
whatever city was then the home of John. The third epistle is
directed to Gaius, (that is, Caius, a Roman name,) whose hospitality
is commemorated with great particularity and gratitude in behalf of
Christian strangers, probably preachers, traveling in his region.
Another person, named Diotrephes, (a Greek by name, and probably
one of the partizans of Cerinthus,) is mentioned as maintaining a
very different character, who, so far from receiving the ministers of
the gospel sent by the apostle, had even excluded from Christian
fellowship those who did exercise this hospitality to the messengers
of the apostle. John speaks threateningly of him, and closes with the
same apology for the shortness of the letter, as in the former. There
are several persons, named Gaius, or Caius, mentioned in apostolic
history; but there is no reason to suppose that any of them was
identified with this man.
For these lucid views of the objects of all these epistles, I am mainly indebted to Hug’s
Introduction, to whom belongs the merit of expressing them in this distinctness, though
others before him have not been far from apprehending their simple force. Michaelis, for
instance, is very satisfactory, and much more full on some points. In respect to the place
whence they were written, Hug appears to be wholly in the wrong, in referring them to
Patmos, just before John’s return. Not the least glimmer of a reason appears, why all the
writings of John should be huddled together in his exile. I can make nothing whatever of the
learned commentator’s reason about the deficiency of “pen, ink and paper,” (mentioned in
Epistle ii. 12, and iii. 13.) as showing that John must still have been in “that miserable
place,” Patmos. The idea seems to require a great perversion of simple words, which do not
seem to be capable of any other sense than that adopted in the above account.
To this period of his life, are referred those stories of his miracles
and actions, with which the ancient fictitious apostolic narratives are
so crowded,――John being the subject of more ancient traditions
than any other apostle. Some of those are so respectable and
reasonable in their character, as to deserve a place here, although
none of them are of such antiquity as to deserve any confidence, on
points where fiction has often been so busy. The first which follows,
is altogether the most ancient of all apostolic stories, which are not in
the New Testament; and even if it is a work of fiction, it has such
merits as a mere tale, that it would be injustice to the readers of this
book, not to give them the whole story, from the most ancient and
best authorized record.
For this series of fables I am indebted again to the kindness of Dr. Murdock, in whose
manuscript lectures they are so well translated from the original romances, as to make it
unnecessary for me to repeat the labor of making a new version from the Latin. The sight of
the results of abler efforts directly before me, offers a temptation to exonerate myself from a
tedious and unsatisfactory effort, which is too great to be resisted, while researches into
historical truth have a much more urgent claim for time and exertion.
The only one of all these fables that occurs in the writings of the Fathers, is the first,
which may be pronounced a tolerably respectable and ancient story. It is narrated by
Clemens Alexandrinus, (about A. D. 200.) The story is copied from Clemens Alexandrinus
by Eusebius, from whom we receive it, the original work of Clemens being now lost.
Chrysostom also gives an abridgement of the tale. (I. Paraenes ad Theodosius) Anastasius
Sinaita, Simeon Metaphrastes, Nicephorus Callistus, the Pseudo-Abdias, and the whole
herd of monkish liars, give the story almost verbatim from Clemens; for it is so full in his
account as to need no embellishment to make it a good story. Indeed its completeness in all
these interesting details, is one of the most suspicious circumstances about it; in short, it is
almost too good a story to be true. Those who wish to see all the evidence for and against
its authenticity, may find it thoroughly examined in Lampe’s Prolegomena to a Johannine
Theology (I. v. 4‒10.) It is, on the whole, the best authorized of all the stories about the
apostles, which are given by the Fathers, and may reasonably be considered to have been
true in the essential parts, though the minute details of the conversations, &c., are probably
embellishments worked in by Clemens Alexandrinus, or his informants.
The rest of these stories are, most unquestionably, all unmitigated falsehoods; nor does
any body pretend to find the slightest authority for a solitary particular of them. They are
found no where but in the novels of the Pseudo-Abdias, and the martyrologies. (Abdiae
Babyloniae episcopi et Apostolorum discipuli de Historia, lib. V., St. John.)
his death.
Respecting the close of his life, all antiquity is agreed that it was
not terminated by martyrdom, nor by any violent death whatever, but
by a calm and peaceful departure in the course of nature, at a very
great age. The precise number of years to which he attained can not
be known, because no writer who lived within five hundred years of
his time has pretended to specify his exact age. It is merely
mentioned on very respectable ancient authority, that he survived to
the beginning of the reign of Trajan. This noblest of the successors
of Julius, began his splendid reign in A. D. 98, according to the most
approved chronology; so that if John did not outlive even the first
year of Trajan, his death is brought very near the close of the first
century; and from what has been reasonably conjectured about his
age, compared with that of his Lord, it may be supposed that he
attained upwards of eighty years,――a supposition which agrees
well enough with the statement of some of the Fathers, that he died
worn out with old age.
Jerome has a great deal to say also, about the age of John at the time when he was
called, arguing that he must have been a mere boy at the time, because tradition asserts
that he lived till the reign of Trajan. Lampe very justly objects, however, that this proof
amounts to nothing, if we accept another common tradition, that he lived to the age of 100
years; which, if we count back a century from the reign of Trajan, would require him to have
attained mature age at the time of the call. Neither tradition however, is worth much. Our old
friend Baronius, too, comes in to enlighten the investigation of John’s age, by what he
considers indubitable evidence. He says that John was in his twenty-second year when he
was called, and passing three years with Christ, must have been twenty-five years old at the
time of the crucifixion; “because,” says the sagacious Baronius, “he was then initiated into
the priesthood.” An assertion which Lampe with indignant surprise stigmatizes as showing
“remarkable boldness,” (insignis audacia,) because it contains two very gross
errors,――first in pretending that John was ever made a priest, (sacerdos,) and secondly in
confounding the age required of the Levites with that of the priests when initiated. For
Baronius’s argument resting wholly on the very strange and unfounded notion, that John
was made a priest, is furthermore supported on the idea that the prescribed age for entering
the priesthood was twenty-five years; but in reality, the age thus required was thirty years,
so that if the other part of this idle story was true, this would be enough to overthrow the
conclusion. Lampe also alludes to the absurd idea of the painters, in representing John as a
young man, even while writing his gospel; while in reality all writers agree that that work was
written by him in his old age. This idea of his perpetual youth, once led into a blunder some
foolish Benedictine monks, who found in Constantinople an antique agate intaglio,
representing a young man with a cornucopia, and an eagle, and with a figure of victory
placing a crown on his head. This struck their monkish fancies at once, as an
unquestionable portrait of John, sent to their hands by a miraculous preservation.
Examination however, has shown it to be a representation of the apotheosis of Germanicus.
But even here, the monkish inventors have found room for new
fables; and though the great weight of all ancient testimony deprives
them of the opportunity to enter into the horrible details of a bloody
and agonizing death, they can not refuse themselves the pleasure of
some tedious absurdities, about the manner of his death and burial,
which are barely worth a partial sketch, to show how determined the
apostolic novelists are to follow their heroes to the very last, with the
glories of a fancifully miraculous departure.
Protoclete.――Hammond claims this peculiar honor for Philip, with great zeal. (See
his notes on John i. 43.)
The testimony of the Fathers on this point, is simply this. Eusebius (Church History, III.
31,) quotes Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, who, in his letter to Victor, bishop of Rome,
(written A. D. 195, or 196,) makes mention of Philip in these exact words: “Philip, who was
one of the twelve apostles, died in Hierapolis;” (in Phrygia;) “and so did two of his
daughters, who had grown old in virginity. And another of his daughters, after having
passed her life under the influence of the Holy Spirit, was buried at Ephesus.” This certainly
is a most perfect identification of Philip the apostle with Philip the deacon; for it is this latter
person who is particularly mentioned in Acts, xxi. 8, 9, as “having four daughters who did
prophesy.” He is there especially designated as “Philip the evangelist, one of the seven,”
while Polycrates expressly declares, that this same person “was one of the twelve.”
Eusebius also, in the preceding chapter, quotes Clemens Alexandrinus as mentioning Philip
among those apostles who were married, because he is mentioned as having had
daughters; and Clemens even adds that these were afterwards married, which directly
contradicts the previous statement of Polycrates, that three of them died virgins, in old age.
Yet Eusebius quotes all this stuff, with approbation.
Papias, (A. D. 140,) bishop of Hierapolis, the very place of the death and burial of Philip,
is represented by Eusebius as having been well acquainted with the daughters of Philip,
mentioned in Acts, as the virgin prophetesses. Papias says that he himself “heard these
ladies say that their father once raised a dead person to life, in their time.” But it deserves
notice, that Papias, the very best authority on this subject, is no where quoted as calling this
Philip “an apostle;” though Eusebius, on his own authority, gives this name to the Philip of
whom Papias speaks. It is therefore reasonable to conclude, that this blunder, betraying
such a want of familiarity with the New Testament history, originated after the time of
Papias, whose intimate acquaintance with Philip’s family would have enabled him to say, at
once, that this was the deacon, and not the apostle; though it is not probable that he was
any less deplorably ignorant of the scriptures than most of the Fathers were.
Now what can be said of the testimony of the Fathers on points where they can not refer,
either to their own personal observation, or to informants who have seen and heard what
they testify? The only way in which they can be shielded from the reproach of a gross
blunder and a disgraceful ignorance of the New Testament, is, that they were right in
identifying these two Philips, and that modern theologians are wrong in making the
distinction. On this dilemma I will not pretend to decide; for though so little reverence for the
judgment and information of the Fathers has been shown in this book, there does seem to
me to be some reason for hesitation on this point, where the Fathers ought to have been as
well informed as any body. They must have known surely, whether, according to the notions
of those primitive ages of Christianity, there was any incompatibility between the apostleship
and the deaconship! If their testimony is worth anything on such points, it ought to weigh so
much on this, as to cause a doubt whether they are not right, and the moderns wrong.
However, barely suggesting this query, without attempting a decision, as Luther says, “I will
afford to other and higher spirits, occasion to reflect.”
This is all the satisfaction that the brief records of the inspired or
uninspired historians of Christianity can give the inquirer, on the life
of this apostle;――so unequal were the labors of the first ministers of
Christ, and their claims for notice. Philip, no doubt, served the
purpose for which he was called, faithfully; but in these brief
sketches, there are no traces of any genius of a high character, that
could distinguish him above the thousands that are forgotten, but
whose labors, like those of the minutest animals in a mole-hill,
contribute an indispensable portion to the completion of the mass, in
whose mighty structure all their individual efforts are swallowed up
forever.
NATHANAEL, BAR-THOLOMEW.
his name and call.
A few very brief notices are given of this apostle by John, who
alone alludes to him, otherwise than by a bare mention on the list. It
is mentioned in his gospel that Nathanael was of Cana, in Galilee, a
town which stood about half-way between lake Gennesaret and the
Mediterranean sea; but the circumstances of his call seem to show
that he was then with Philip, probably at or near Bethsaida. Philip,
after being summoned by Jesus to the discipleship, immediately
sought to bring his friend Nathanael into an enjoyment of the honors
of a personal intercourse with Jesus, and invited him to become a
follower of the Messiah, foretold by Moses and the prophets, who
had now appeared, as Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. On
hearing of that mean place, as the home of the promised King of
Israel, Nathanael, with great scorn, replied, in inquiry, “Can any good
thing come out of Nazareth?” To this sneering question, Philip
answered by the simple proposition, “Come and see;”――wisely
judging that no argument could answer his friend’s prejudice so well
as an actual observation of the character and aspect of the
Nazarene himself. Nathanael, accordingly, persuaded by the
earnestness of his friend, came along with him, perhaps, partly to
gratify him, but, no doubt, with his curiosity somewhat moved to
know what could have thus brought Philip into this devout regard for
a citizen of that dirty little town; and he therefore readily
accompanied him to see what sort of prophet could come out of
Nazareth.
On the day but one after this occurrence, as John records, Jesus
was in Cana of Galilee, the residence of Nathanael, and was present
at a wedding which took place there. From the circumstance that the
mother of Jesus was there also, it would seem likely that it was the
marriage of some of their family friends; otherwise the conjecture
might seem allowable, that the presence of Jesus and his disciples
on this occasion, was in some way connected with the introduction of
Nathanael to Jesus; and that this new disciple may have been some
way concerned in this interesting event. The manner in which the
occurrence is announced,――it being next specified, that two days
after the occurrences recorded in the end of the first chapter, Jesus
was present at a marriage in Cana of Galilee,――would seem to
imply very fairly, that Jesus had been in some other place
immediately before; and it is probable therefore, that he
accompanied Nathanael home from Bethsaida, or whatever place
was the scene of his calling to the discipleship, along with Philip. The
terms of the statement are not, however, absolutely incompatible
with the idea of this first introduction of these two disciples to Jesus,
in Cana itself, which may have been the part of Galilee into which
Jesus is said to have gone forth, after leaving Bethabara; although,
the reasons above given make it probable that Bethsaida was the
scene. After this first incident, no mention whatever is made of
Nathanael, either under his proper name, or his paternal appellation,
except that when the twelve were sent forth in pairs, he was sent
with his friend Philip, that those who had been summoned to the
work together, might now go forth laboring together in this high
commission. One solitary incident is also commemorated by John, in
which this apostle was concerned, namely, the meeting on the lake
of Gennesaret, after the resurrection, where his name is mentioned
among those who went out on the fishing excursion with Peter. His
friend Philip is not there mentioned, but may have been one of the
“two disciples,” who are included without their names being given.
From this trifling circumstance, some have concluded that Nathanael
was a fisherman by trade, as well as the other four who are
mentioned with him; and certainly the conjecture is reasonable, and
not improbable, except from the circumstance, that his residence
was at Cana, which is commonly understood to have been an inland
town, and too far from the water, for any of its inhabitants to follow