THE

VOYAGE AND SHIPWRECK

OF

SAINT PAUL.

DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE.

BEFORE entering upon the following inquiry, there is a preliminary question which must be disposed of—namely, Is the Luke, the physician mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistles as a beloved friend and fellow-labourer, the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles? For most readers it might be sufficient to cite the evidence of Irenæus, who lived too near the time of the Evangelist to render it probable that he could be mistaken on such a matter. By some recent critics, however, the authorship has been assigned to Timothy, and by others to Silas. My first object, therefore, must be to show that neither Timothy nor Silas could have written them, and, next, that they were written by St. Luke.

With regard to Timothy, it is difficult to understand how the authorship could be ascribed to him in direct

B

contradiction to the author's own statements, that when in company with St. Paul he sailed from Philippi, Timothy and others going before " tarried for us." (See Acts, xx4-6.) There is another reason against the supposition that Timothy could have been the author, which, as it applies to Silas also, I may be allowed to dwell upon at greater length than might otherwise seem necessary.

In inquiries into the evidence furnished by historical writings, it is of importance to distinguish between the historical style, taking the word in the limited sense as that of a narrator relating events on the authority of others, and the autoptical, or that in which he describes what fell under his own observation — in other words, in the style of an eye-witness; because by doing so we are enabled to determine whether the author was or was not present at the events which he describes. These characteristics of narration, which appear to be unavoidable when an author writes truthfully and naturally, are peculiarly observable in the writings of St. Luke. Thus, in his account of the second missionary journey of St. Paul, he uses the first person plural, in Acts, xvi. 10., proving that he was then at Troas. Now it is interesting to observe how naturally the change of style from the historical to the autoptical coincides with the change of pronoun. It is in fact one of those undesigned coincidences which afford such conclusive proof of the authenticity of the narration. Let us consider the bearing which this difference of style has on the present case. In this long land journey of Paul and Silas from Antioch to Troas, nothing is mentioned but what is purely historical. At Troas the vision of St. Paul, calling upon him to proceed

to Macedonia, is historical, and properly mentioned, as are the events at Philippi. But between Troas and Philippi nothing of historical importance took place; and a historian who did not make the journey would probably have said no more than that St. Paul and his friends, warned by the vision at Troas, proceeded to Philippi, the capital of Macedonia. Let us now see the manner in which this short and uneventful voyage is described. In the first place we are told that they "got under way" (avax DevTes) at Troas, and ran straight (subudpoμno aμev) to Samothrace, and next day to Neapolis (xvi. 11.). But it was quite immaterial, historically speaking, whether they went by sea or by land, whether they ran straight or circuitously (TEPEXOVTES), as they did afterwards on the coast of Sicily (xxviii. 13.), whether they passed by Samothrace or landed at Neapolis, for we hear of nothing having occurred at any of these places. We cannot suppose that an author who writes so autoptically when he was present, even in describing a journey of two days, can have described a journey taken by himself, which must have consumed many months, without the notice of a single autoptical incident. I conclude, therefore, that the author was not present on the previous journey from Antioch to Troas; but as both Silas and Timothy were, neither of them could have been the author of the narrative.

I have dwelt longer upon the importance of distinguishing between the historical and autoptical styles, because it will be seen, in the course of the following inquiry, how much light it throws, not only on the life of St. Luke, but upon the origin of his writings, and their connexion with those of the other Evangelists.

I have now to state other and not less cogent reasons to prove that Silas could not be the author of the Acts. In the first place, how does it happen that his name should so often occur in the narrative of that portion of the life of St. Paul, which begins with his departure from Jerusalem, and ends with his residence at Corinth? In this not very lengthened period, the name of Silas occurs thirteen times. St. Paul also, in writing from Corinth to the Thessalonians, mentions him, along with Timothy and himself, as addressing (i. 1.) that church: in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians (i. 19.), he expressly alludes to his labours along with Silas in that city. We hear no more of him afterwards either in the Acts or St. Paul's epistles. Can we suppose that in the latter and most eventful portion of the history of St. Paul, if he had been in company with him, he should so completely change his style, and that his name should never been have mentioned either in the Acts or the epistles? Lastly, can we suppose that so modest a writer as the author of the Acts unquestionably was, should introduce himself to the reader as one of " the chief men among the brethren" (xv. 22.)?

It may be asked what, then, are the reasons assigned for the supposition that Silas was the author of the writings attributed to St. Luke? A late author* has urged the following:-First, his accurate knowledge of the proceedings of St. Peter, with whom Silas was intimately connected (see 1 Pet. v. 12.): but this proves nothing, for the author of the Acts, whoever he was, was in a position to have ready access to the Apostles, and with the object of writing an account of the first spread

* See Kitto's Journal of Sacred Literature, Oct. 1850.

of Christianity, he could not fail to have recourse to so unquestionable an authority as that of St. Peter.

Another argument is drawn from the statement in xvi. 10.: "And after he had seen the vision immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the Gospel unto them." This is held to be arrogance if we suppose it was written by St. Luke. But there is no arrogance in the statement of a fact, a fact confirmed, as regards Luke, by St. Paul, who calls him his fellowlabourer (Philem. 24.); and besides it is the universal practice for even the humblest members of collective bodies of men to save circumlocution by speaking of their proceedings in the first person plural. The author does no more in this passage. But if Silas be the author, he may justly be accused of arrogance in the one above quoted, in which he assumes a superiority over others.

The last argument is taken from the meaning of the names "Lucus," grove; " Silva, whence Silvanus or Silas," wood. This admits that Luke is the author; but if we can identify Silas with Luke, we also prove that Silas is the author. To this I reply, that we have the names Wood and Grove still, but who would dream of trying to identify them?

I am not aware that the authorship has been ascribed to any other companion of St. Paul, except St. Luke and the two above mentioned. It has, indeed, been supposed that the latter portion of the Acts is not written by the author of the Gospel; but the difference of style is simply that of the historian and eye-witness, in every other respect the same hand is perceptible in both works.

Having, as I believe, cleared away the claims that have