cheenc03a.pdf

SILAS, SILVANUS
llrction with Jerusalem by means of his companion
Silaa, and ).et, to decline to be shut up to the supposition
that 11185 tend~ncy brought about the ~ubrtitution of this
Silar in the place of another cornpar~ivn of the apostle;
it is enough to discern the error nlld thc tendency of
Acts jiniply in its represent8tion of the Silar uho
actually did accompany Paul as a prominent person
in the primitive church and, in particular, as guarantor
of the aoosralic decree.
That th. compinion of Paul aar . Jew is pres"ppoi~d not
only by the c?mporer of Actr a? a whole, inzmuch as he
7. p.t. S,li\ I" 17 lo =s somlng forward in synagog,uer
and nl,u (iO3) reprrirnrs clrcumcirion a. being neccrsary 1" r
comprnian of Paul (in the care of Timothy), but also by the
nuthor of the 'we'-sourcc (scc ACTS, 5 r, 9 ?nd). who includes
Silzs among the number of rhore who (ascordlng 10?6 ze) go to
the rynrgogue or, ar the care may be to the Jewlrh piace of
prayer, and (16x3) reach there. 1; 1620 Paul and Silz
are even celled Jews expre.rirtho"gh only in the mouths of
their assurcrs it is true an whxch accou.rt the para e must
be rp, on one. ride as brsibl meaning to suggest &i.t the
MlllCII were in error (sp 1637f
Amongst the views of critics we find not only the distinction
between Silas and Silvanus iust sooken of:
SILAS, SILVANUS
(b) A peculiar position is taken up by Seufert. He
does not write in the apolo~etic interest ; rather doer he
ascribe to the compo;er of Act5 a tendency similar to
that supposed by Weizsacker (5 3 above), that, nanlely,
of putting forward Titus, by the selection of his Jewishrounding
name Silar (see below, 5 76). as a man stand-
-
ins in close connection with the leruralem Christians.
and so bridging ovei the gulf ixtween these and Paul.
If will be time to conrider this theory when the identity
of Titus and Silas has becn established; bur, as has
been shown, what is proved is their distinclnerr.
The acme of complexity is reached by thc hypothesis
of Zimmer (see belo~v, 5 10). According to him, Silus
6, One Silaa 'he Jewish Cllrirtiali of Jerusalem is
identical
~a Titus,
mentioned only in Acts 151% 27 3% f ;
diainct from him, but identlcnl with
Silvvnus and Titus, is the Silas named
in Actr 1540-185.
To all thin the answer must be that identity of etymological
meaning in the case of two proper names by no
means establisher any title to identify the persons who
bear them. Moreover, it is not objectionable but befitting
the seemly modesty of the author if his joining
the company of travellers is indicated not by the mention
of his name but rinlply by the transition from the third
to the first person, whether he is really himself the eyewitness
or falsely makes himself appear as such (see
ACTS, 5 r). The transition to the first person, too, is
not made any more explicable if the person so indicated
has already been named. Since he is not the only one
rho hr, been so named we do not learn from the
'we' who he is. Moreover. Van Vloten has not at all
succeeded in disposing of the difficulties by which the
hypothesis that Silns wrote the source is beret (see
Acrs.5 g), or even in lessrnillg them: the identification
with Luke contributes absolutely nothing at all towards
their removal.
The identification of Silas-Silvanus with Titus has
been
.,
attempted in qniteother interests. (a) . . It h s lonz
be& regarded as n conspicuous instance
5, silaaof
silence due to * tendency' that in
8ilwnus
Act5 the name of Titus, who, according
to Gal. 23. war the subject of so
violent a contention at the Council of Jeruinlrrn, is mentioned
neither in this connection nor yet anywhere else
(see COUNCIL, 5 7). This difficulty would disappear if
Titus war identical with Silar. Titus, however, was
a Gentile Christian, we learn (Gal. 23): whilst Silar.
according to Acts 1611, was a member of the church of
Jerusalem.