Silas of the history, the faithful brother' spoken of by Peter, the beloved colleague of Paul, one of the chief men of the church at Jerusalem,-like St. Paul, a Roman citizen, but of the Jewish nation, and a 'prophet' or gifted instructor in the Christian church,-who must, therefore, from his position and connections, have had every opportunity of obtaining perfect understanding of all things from the very first,' and have united every qualification for the task of an historian,-I have pleased myself in believing, that we may recognise the Evangelist who is consecrated to our earliest and most hallowed associations under the name of Luke. If tradition has blundered so far as to make even Silas and Silvanus different persons, no wonder that it should have failed to preserve any link of connection between Silas and Lucas, or any authentic biographical trace of either. In such a case, an approach to certainty is unattainable, and confident assertion on either side would be unbecoming. If it is not easy to account for St. Paul's referring to Silas under the name of Lucas, neither is it easy to guess why he never calls Silvanus Silas, nor why the history never gives to Silas his full Roman name; nor why, in writing to the Galatian Greeks, St. Paul should speak of Peter under the Syriac name of Cephas, while, in the fifteenth of Acts, he is mentioned by that of Simeon; nor why Nathanael is never mentioned by three of the Evangelists under that name, although there is strong ground to believe him to have been one of the Twelve, and he is generally supposed to be the same as Bartholomew; nor even why Saul was also called Paul. At all periods of their history, the Jews were accustomed to adopt Gentile appellatives. Alexander, Jason, Menelaus, Crispus, Justus, Niger, occur as Jewish names in Josephus, as well as in the New Testament. Lucanus and Silvanus are clearly Roman names; and as they seem in meaning almost convertible, one may have been the alias of the other. Why should this be deemed more unlikely than that the same Apostle should be referred to under the names of Thaddeus, Lebbæus, and Judas or Jude? Yet, the assumed improbability of this supposition is the only ground for rejecting what must at all events be regarded as an interesting hypothesis.

The tradition was doubtless founded on truth, that the third Gospel and the Book of Acts were the work of the faithful companion of St. Paul. Such Silas was, as we learn from the history: that Luke was, the history does not tell us. Origen supposed Luke to be referred to, 2 Cor. viii. 18; a suppostion which appears to have taken its rise from an erroneous interpretation of the words, év tập ɛvayyɛλíw, as referring to a written gospel. Mr.

They are distinguished in the Greek Calendar. Silas is there made bishop of Corinth, and Silvanus bishop of Thessalonica! 2 A 2

Birks

i

Birks has adopted this exploded notion. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Calvin suppose Barnabas to be referred to; but, inasmuch as the commonly received opinion makes Luke to be one of those who bore the epistle, the great Reformer is disposed to think that Luke may be intended by the third party at ver. 22. That Barnabas was associated with Paul at this time, and that he was sent by him to Corinth, is in the highest degree improbable. The opinion seems to have been suggested by what is mentioned in Acts xi. 30. But, if this opinion cannot be reconciled with the Apostolic narrative, the only brother chosen of the churches to travel with the Apostle, and held in esteem throughout the churches, to whom the words can point, is Silas; and it seems strange that this should have been overlooked. If so, then, we have an explanation of the circumstance, that an epistle which was really transmitted by Titus and Silas, is, in the ancient subscription, said to have been sent by the hands of Titus and Lucas. So completely had Silvanus merged in Luke, that not a biographical trace of Silas is to be found in Patristic tradition. It is scarcely less singular, that Mark, the companion of Paul and Barnabas in their first circuit, and afterwards associated with Paul at Rome, should be in like manner merged by tradition in Mark the disciple of Peter, who, nevertheless, is made to have been a different person.

Upon what evidence the Gospels of Mark and Luke were attributed to those Evangelists, it is difficult to collect from any extant documents. At the beginning of the second century, it is mentioned by Papias as a tradition, that Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote exactly whatever he remembered; thus resting the authority and credit of Mark's Gospel upon its being a true and faithful relation of the discourses of Peter. Clement of Alexandria adds, that Mark wrote his Gospel at the request of Peter's hearers at Rome. The whole of this legend is clearly apocryphal, being disproved by the close relation which the Gospel of Mark bears to that of Matthew, and by the fact, that Mark, when at Rome, was the companion, not of Peter, who probably never visited Rome, but of Paul. By Papias, Luke is not referred to. An ancient writer of uncertain date, whose remains have been confounded with those of Justin," says, that both the writers of the genealogies were Hebrews, and took their accounts from the public registers, but does not name the Evangelists. Lardner

See Lardner, vol. v. p. 282. i Probably Erastus. Lit. Hist., p. 320. The ingenious author of the Essay on the Voyage of St. Paul has started the hypothesis, that the Gospel of Mark was in fact written by Peter in Hebrew, and translated by the Evangelist.

m Lardner's Works, vol. ii. p. 129.

infers,

infers, that, as the writer 'supposed Luke to have been a Jew, it is likely that he did not think him to be the physician mentioned by the Apostle Paul.' But it is not certain that he ascribed the third Gospel to Luke. Irenæus (A.D. 178) is the earliest of the fathers who gives a distinct account of the writers of the Four Gospels; and his account is so full of inaccuracies as greatly to diminish our confidence in his means of information, since (as cited by Eusebius) he tells us, that Matthew wrote a Gospel for the Jews in their own language, while Paul and Peter were preaching the Gospel at Rome, and founding a church there; that Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things that had been preached by Peter; and Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him (Paul). Such a statement as this affords decisive evidence that, while the churches had faithfully preserved the sacred documents, what must have originally been known as to the circumstances of their authorship and composition, not being preserved in a written record, had been lost, and that every biographical record of the Evangelists had perished. But this very fact supplies a strong argument in favour of the early date, and consequently of the genuineness, of the Gospels; since, if, by the close of the second century, the traditional knowledge of their literary history had assumed the shape of an incoherent legend, we may be certain that they could not have been the production of post-apostolic times. Moreover, their early, universal, and unquestioned reception demonstrates, that the authorship of these (to us) anonymous documents must have been known to the primitive churches, or that they had the seal of apostolic authority. Thus, the authenticity and canonical authority of the Four Gospels, it is important to bear in mind, do not in any degree rest upon the correctness of the tradition respecting them. The authorship of the Gospel of John is, indeed, clearly indicated by internal evidence; and it is manifest, that it could not have been the first Gospel, since it partakes so obviously of a supplemental character. From internal evidence, also, a very strong presumption may be established, that the Gospel of Mark, though written after that of Matthew, was from the pen of an eye-witness, and, if not the work of Peter, was written under his inspection; and it may be the fact, that the Evangelist was the translator or the amanuensis of that Apostle. The notion, that Paul wrote or dictated a Gospel, seems to have arisen from a misconstruction of the phrase which repeatedly occurs in his Epistles, According to my gospel' (Rom. ii. 16; xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8). And Luke is made to have been his disciple and follower, without the slightest evidence or reason. Lardner concludes, that Luke was an early

Jewish

Jewish believer.' He might, indeed, have composed his Gospel before be became associated with Paul; for, although the Acts could not have been finished before A.D. 62, there is nothing to forbid our supposing his Gospel to have been written even ten or fifteen years before." Whoever Theophilus was, his name by no means indicates a Greek or a Gentile convert, since this was the name of one of the sons of Ananus, whom Vitellius appointed high-priest, A.D. 37. It is remarkable, that, in one place, Irenæus seems to rest the proof that St. Paul was an apostle upon the testimony of the Evangelist Luke, rather than to make the authority of Luke rest upon that of the Apostle. It appears to me evident, that the unquestioned reception given to both the Gospel and the Acts by all the churches (for which, in the absence of authentic records, the various legends were intended to account), prove the Author to have been of much higher standing than is ordinarily assigned to the Evangelist Luke. JC

JEWISH COMMENTARIES ON ISAIAH

CHAP. LII. 13-LIII.

Introduction.

THE section of Isaiah's prophecies which is contained in the last three verses of the 52nd chapter, and the whole of the 53rd, has afforded subject of much disputation. It has been interpreted either of some individual, or of a body of men personified. Of those who adopt the former view, some have attempted to apply it to Hezekiah or some other Jewish king, to Jeremiah, to Isaiah himself, and even to Moses; but by far the largest proportion of Christian expositors, and several also of the Jewish, particularly the most ancient, have explained it of the Messiah. Those interpreters who maintain the latter of the two views above mentioned, pretty generally agree in the opinion that the section relates to

n

Theophylact and Euthymius assert, that Luke wrote his Gospel with Paul's permission fifteen years after our Lord's ascension (Lardner, vol. v. p. 357). Clement of Alexandria says the Gospels containing the genealogies were first written • See Greswell's Dissertations, vol. i. p. 348.

P See Lardner, vol. ii. p. 174.

9 From a valuable American work, but little known in this country, published in 1847, under the title of 'Biographical Notices of some of the most distinguished Jewish Rabbies, and Translations of portions of their Commentaries and other Works, with illustrative Introductions and Notes. By SAMUEL H. TURNER, D.D.’ Some further account of it may be found among the Notices of Books.

the

the Jewish people, or at least the better part of them, although a few consider it as descriptive of the prophetic body.

Among the defenders of this last view, Gesenius is the most prominent. He regards the Lord's servant as a personification of the Hebrew prophets, whose exaltation is predicted in lii. 13. Heretofore deformed by opposition and sufferings, they shall still at a future period fill the people with joy. Kings shall honour them when unexpected events, not believed when announced, shall have taken place (14, 15; liii. 1). Deserted, despised, and afflicted, God allowed them to grow up among the people (2, 3), and sent them subjected to sufferings, which they bore patiently as an offering (7). But they bore them for the sins of the people, which the Lord laid upon them (4, 5, 6). They were removed from their sufferings by death, and, although innocent, were buried with transgressors, none understanding the real design of their sufferings (8, 9). As a reward, they shall yet live long, see a late posterity, enjoy the spread of their doctrine, and divide their portion with the mighty (10-12).

The Jewish expositors, from the middle ages down to the present time, explain the section of their own nation. Their existing state of depression and persecution, and their future supposed exaltation and suremacy over all other people, constitute the leading points of the prophecy. Some modern Christian expositors have adopted the same view. The ancients invariably interpret it of the Messiah.

That the section comprehends a reference to the state of the Jewish nation is a view, which seems to have been favourably regarded by some of their expositors at a very early period. The Chaldee Targum, a translation of which on this portion is subjoined to the following Rabbinical Commentary, although it directly declares the Lord's servant to be the Messiah, does evidently, in its paraphrastic exposition, introduce the Jewish nation in close connection with this its prince and saviour. The reader will perceive that the Messiah and the people are brought forward with nearly equal prominence, the transitions from the one to the other being altogether unfounded and strangely arbitrary. Still it shows us, that in the time of its author, a reference to the nation was superadded to the Messianic interpretation. This interpretation seems gradually to have been superseded by it, for Origen tells us, that, on his alleging passages from this section in argument with some learned Jews, he was met by the objection, that no individual, but the whole people were intended by the prophet; a view which he immediately attacks as unsupported.

Origen against Celsus, book 1, pp. 42, 43, Hoeschel's edition, 4to. 1605.

It