St. Luke the Prophet. By Edward Carus Selwyn, D.D. (Mac-
millan and Co. 8s. 6d.)-Dr. Selwyn's main contention is that Silas and Luke were identical, the former name giving place to the latter for reasons which are detailed in chap. 1. (" Silas " is referred to the Hebrew = tertius, and so we get an explanation of the mysterious " I, Tertius, who wrote this Epistle," Romans xvi. 22.) The general argument for this identity is such as it is impossible to compress within any space available. We must own ourselves to be unconvinced. Indeed, whatever Dr. Selwyn may urge on this point, the fact remains that nothing short of demonstration, as far as demon- stration is possible in a subject of this kind, would convert us to a thesis so novel. But this we gladly say, that no one can read this treatise without learning very much from it. The learning and ingenuity which it shows, though they may fail to bring about the conviction which the author desires to produce, must be of the greatest service to any attentive student. And some of the subsidiary issues raised by Dr. Selwyn may well be better received than his main contention. We have, for instance, a highly attractive theory on 2 Peter. The gravity of the situation in respect of this document is such as it is impossible to ignore. Here is a canonical book which is freely pronounced by orthodox critics to be not genuine. What, then, does canonicity mean? Luke-Silas, it is suggested-the identification is not essential- wrote both the Epistles for Peter, " who never became a Greek scholar equal to the free idiomatic Greek of these Epistles." The connection of 2 Peter with Jude is traceable to the fact that Silas and Jude, as Acts xv. 32 tells us, " were prophets also themselves." Both freely used the Book of Enoch, which they regarded in the uncritical spirit characteristic of the time.
Previous page
