ON THE HYPOTHESIS WHICH IDENTIFIES SILAS WITH THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK OF ACTS.

6

In a work entitled, The Literary History of the New Testament, published a year or two ago, the opinion is advanced, that the same internal evidence upon which the authorship of the Book of Acts has been ascribed to Luke, enables us to identify Luke with Silas or Silvanus, St. Paul's chosen companion after his separation from Barnabas.' The Author was not aware at the time, that he had been anticipated in this conjecture or hypothesis by any preceding writer; but, in Dr. S. Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii., the hypothesis which identifies Luke with Silas,' is cursorily noticed as having been embraced by 'one or two recent writers, among whom is Hennell, the deistical author.' No other writer is named, the learned Doctor forbearing, perhaps, to put the author of the Literary History in such bad company. Hennell's work, which I had not seen, appeared in 1838. He contents himself with very briefly indicating his opinion, that Luke and Silas probably designate the same individual; and though he does not seem to put it forth as an original suggestion, he makes no reference to any preceding writer as having held the same hypothesis. The opinion, that Silas was the writer of the memoirs of which the latter part of the Book of Acts consists, is referred to by Dr. Davidson as having been 'recently adopted and defended by Schwanbeck,' and also as favoured by De Wette. Instead, however, of regarding Silas and Luke as the same person, Schwanbeck 6 that the editor of the Book of Acts' supposes only availed himself of the account furnished by Silas, and made some alterations in it. This notion does not appear to differ very widely from the supposition adopted by Dr. Davidson himself, with regard to the earlier portion of the narrative, that the historian made use of written documents. He nevertheless gladly dismisses it,' with the remark, that not a single proof is adduced in its favour. Yet, the reason for such an opinion may deserve notice. It is grounded upon the conclusion, that the language employed in some portions of the sacred narrative can have proceeded from no other than Silas; and if Silas was not the writer of the Book of Acts, this hypothesis, intended to meet a real difficulty, in a case which admits only of a probable conclusion, would seem to merit more considerate treatment.

a An Inquiry concerning the Origin of Christianity. By Charles C. Hennell. 8vo. London. The second edition bears date 1841.

6

6

In Dr. Eadie's Biblical Cyclopædia (1849), under the article Luke,' the supposition that the evangelist was the same with Silas, is noticed at considerable length, as having been maintained by a recent writer in his Literary History of the New Testament; and it affords a curious instance of the slender grounds upon which critics of undoubted learning are sometimes found to base their most assured conclusions, that, while apparently anxious to prove the theorist mistaken in identifying Lucas with Silas,' the writer of this article adopts as more probable the fanciful notion, that Silas is the same person as Tertius, mentioned Rom. xvi. 22; alleging, that 'Silas and Tertius have in their respective tongues the same signification.' Although this etymological discovery has the learned sanction of Lightfoot, it will not bear examination. Between the Hebrew Shalishee," third, and the Greek appellative has, there is no plausible resemblance. In the Syriac Version, the name appears in the form of Shilo, which would admit of no other probable derivation in that language, than from the verb Shlo, to cease or rest. The Arabic Translator spells the name Sila, which, as a learned friend suggests, might in like manner be derived from the corresponding verb, Sala, to rest. But the notion, that Silas was a Syriac name, of which Silvanus was the Romanised form, is alike improbable and gratuitous. The writer in the Cyclopædia asserts, indeed, that Lucanus is only the Grecised form of the Syriac Lucas, as Sylvanus is merely the Grecised form of Silas.' This is a mere dictum nor is there the slightest reason to regard Lucas as a Syriac appellative. That Silas and Silvanus denote the same person, is not doubted; and these must therefore be regarded as varied forms of the same name, like Apollos and Apollonius, Epaphras and Epaphroditus, Artemas and Artemonius, Prisca and Priscilla. In each of these instances, the shorter appellative appears to be a conventional contraction, not the original name. It is possible, indeed, that both Silvanus and Lucanus may have been Greek and Latin forms of a Jewish or Syriac appellative of identical import; as we have Peter and Cephas, Thomas and Didymus, Tabitha and Dorcas. The apparent derivation of Lucanus from lucus, and of Silvanus from silva, is, I find, noticed by Hennell; and the coincidence of meaning is too striking to be peremptorily set aside as undeserving of consideration. The correspondence in derivation and import between the two names, would not, indeed, prove that they belonged to the same individual; nor is it adduced as having, à priori, and by itself, much argumentative weight; but it deserves attention as giving some additional probability to an hypothesis resting upon other arguments, that the two names were borne by the same person; and

the

the correspondence is certainly more apparent than that between Silas and Tertius, or between Lucas and Lucius.

The Rev. T. R. Birks, in his Hora Apostolicæ, supplementary to Paley's Hore Pauline, has also referred to the hypothesis lately started by an able and ingenious writer (Lit. Hist. New Test.), that Silas and Luke are only two names of the same person,' and assigns what he deems decisive reasons for rejecting the novel theory.' In common, however, with all who have hitherto undertaken to prove it to be erroneous, he has neither fairly stated the argument nor met the real question. It forms no solid objection to an hypothesis, that it is not free from difficulties. Let it, however, be borne in mind, that the only position which is thought to be established by internal evidence, is, that Silas was the writer of the Book of Acts. But, as the former treatise' referred to by the historian, is certainly the Gospel which tradition ascribes to the Evangelist Luke, it is in order to reconcile the induction from internal evidence with the tradition, that the hypothesis has been proposed, which identifies the Evangelist with Silas, the chosen colleague of St. Paul. Let me be allowed, then, in the first place, briefly to state the positive argument.

The Book of Acts appears to have been composed about two and thirty years after Our Lord's ascension, with an account of which it opens; terminating abruptly in the second year of St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome. The narrative naturally divides itself into three parts; the first embracing the period from the Pentecost of A.D. 30, to the first persecution, A.D. 37; the second, from the Conversion of Saul to the Council of Jerusalem, A.D. 50; the third, from the union of Paul and Silas, A.D. 51, to their arrival at Rome, A.D. 61. Throughout the first and second portions, the historian never employs the first person, or speaks as an eye-witness of the transactions. Yet, in the earlier chapters, in which a peculiar prominence is given to the Apostle Peter, the precise information is such as must have been obtained by some one resident at Jerusalem, and in close connection with the Apostles. The first twelve chapters, indeed, may be said to be occupied chiefly with the acts and discourses of Peter; and the scene is always either Jerusalem or some part of Judæa, with the exception of Saul's memorable journey to Damascus. After the council held to consider of the questions submitted to the Apostles by the Church at Antioch, Paul and Barnabas were, on their return, attended by two chosen men of the Apostolic company, namely, Judas Bar Sabas and Silas; and the latter was subsequently chosen by Paul as his colleague in his Apostolic mission, when he separated from Barnabas, who had insisted upon taking with them his nephew, John Mark. From this point in the narrative, the

actions

actions and adventures of St. Paul are brought before us with much greater distinctness and minuteness, while those of the other Apostles are lost sight of; and thus, the historian, who appears in the first part of the Acts as the biographer of Peter, henceforth seems to stand in the same relation to Paul. The supposition that he first became acquainted with the latter Apostle, or was first associated with him, at Troas, even were it more than a gratuitous conjecture, would leave unexplained these marked features of the historical narrative. Nor would the suggestion, that, in the former portions of the book, the historian made use of written documents, furnish any explanation of this peculiarity, that it is only the speeches and discourses of St. Peter that are thus minutely recorded. Besides, who so likely to have committed these to writing at the time, as the historian himself, who in that case must have stood in intimate relation to that Apostle? If, indeed, as Dr. Davidson assumes, Luke had no written sources in the second part of his history,' there can be no necessity for supposing that he had written sources for the first part, unless it were his own notes. Credner's supposition, that Luke got by far the greater part of the information contained in the first twelve chapters from John Mark, though treated by Dr. Davidson as 'improbable,' would be the most natural and satisfactory explanation, were it not obvious, that one who was familiar with John Mark, must also have been personally acquainted with Peter, as belonging to the same Apostolic company.

Now, in the First Epistle of Peter, two of his associates are mentioned, and only two; namely, Silvanus, a faithful brother,' and Marcus, my son.' Both of them must have been with St. Peter when he wrote that Epistle, which was sent from Babylon or Seleucia (as I conclude) about A.D. 48; and we must suppose them to have accompanied him thither. After being miraculously delivered out of the hand of Herod (A.D. 43), Peter, to evade the rage of the tyrant, had quitted Jerusalem; and although he may have returned in the interim, we find him in A.D. 48 at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11), probably on his return from more distant parts. John Mark had accompanied his uncle Barnabas and Paul on their return from Jerusalem to Antioch, and had afterwards attended them on their mission (A.D. 45) as far as Perga, in Pamphylia, whence, for some unexplained reason, he returned to Jerusalem. But, as we find him at Antioch, after the Council of Jerusalem, in A.D. 50, there is nothing to forbid the supposition that he had been associated with Peter in his visit to the Jews of Babylonia in the interval. Silvanus, or Silas, if sent forth on his mission to the Jews of the dispersion in Pontus and the other provinces of the Peninsula in 48, might have returned to Jerusalem

by

by the time that we find him there, together with Peter and the other Apostles, in A.D. 50. Having been chosen, with Judas Bar Sabas, to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, it pleased Silas to remain there till he set out with Paul on his second Apostolic cireuit; and thenceforward we find him associated in the narrative with that Apostle.

In this arrangement of the brief indications to be gathered respecting Silas, we have all that is required as an explanation of that marked feature of the history; that the writer of the former part appears as the companion, or at least as the biographer of Peter, and, in the latter part, as the colleague of Paul. We find him, moreover, both in the Epistle of Peter and in the Acts, associated with John Mark, sister's son to Barnabas,' and the adopted or spiritual son of Peter; so that any peculiar information which Mark could supply, Silvanus would have access to. And if John Mark was the same as Mark the Evangelist, (which is the opinion of Lightfoot, Wetstein, Lardner, Hug, and others,) who more likely to have committed to writing the remarkable transactions of the early days of the Church, than the Author of the second Gospel?

Every unbiassed reader of the first part of the Book of Acts must, however, receive the impression, that the historian is recording facts of which he was personally cognizant, and which he did not learn at second-hand. The fabulous and contradictory accounts of Luke the Evangelist, which make him to have been a Syrian or Greek, a native of Antioch, or of Philippi, or of Cyrene, or of Troas, and a Gentile convert or Hellenist, if any credit could be attached to them, would make against his being the author of the Book of Acts.

Το possess the personal knowledge which the Historian displays, and to which he lays claim at the opening of the Gospels, he must have been a resident at Jerusalem, and one of the Apostolic company. Accordingly, it has been supposed that Luke was one of the Seventy. It has been observed, too, that the Author of the Gospel of Luke appears to have been in possession of some pecu liar information that must have been derived immediately from the Mother of Our Lord herself, who resided at Jerusalem till, as it is said, to avoid the approaching catastrophe, she removed with the Apostle John to Ephesus-if, indeed, she survived so long. Everything forbids our supposing that the Gospel of the Apostolic Historian was the work of a mere compiler from written documents, a personal stranger to the memorable events which attended the foundation of the Christian Church, and occupying the subordinate position of an amanuensis, or a simple attendant upon St. Paul, who had joined him in the course of his Apostolic travels. Tradition