This may not be of interest to many of you, but being the kind of person I am I simply needed to investigate this issue to figure out what the truth actually is. So the question that many NT Scholars ask is:

Who Was The Author Of Luke & Acts?

No one seems to know for sure who wrote those two NT books, and they have always been erroneously attributed to Luke. But there has never been any kind of decent evidence at all to support Luke as being the author.

So I decided to investigate it more closely to see if there is any hint within Acts as to who actually wrote it, which would also tell us who wrote Luke since both almost certainly have been written by the same author.

I decided to look up all examples of a single word: "We." What I was looking for was any instances where the word "we" would appear in a 1st Person Narrative.

I was not disappointed. I knew I was on to something almost immediately.

The first time we see the 1st person narrative being used by the author of Acts is in the following verse:

Act_16:10 And after he saw the vision, we immediately tried to go into Macedonia, gathering that the Lord had called us in order to preach the gospel to them.

So now that I found the first instance of a 1st person narrative, I had to find out who the we actually was, as it had to be someone who was with Paul previous to that first instance. This is what I found just a few verses previous:

Paul is With Silas:

Act 15:40 But choosing Silas, Paul went out, being commended by the brothers to the grace of God,

So with that established, we move forward.


1st Person Narrative begins when Paul is with Silas:

Act_16:10 And after he saw the vision, we immediately tried to go into Macedonia, gathering that the Lord had called us in order to preach the gospel to them.

Act_16:11 Then having set sail from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis;

Act_16:12 and from there to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, a colony. And we continued spending time in that city some days.

Act_16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was usually made. And we sat down and spoke to the women who came together there.

Act_16:16 And as we went to prayer, it happened that a certain girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much gain by divining.

It was when Silas was with Paul that we see all instances of the 1st person narrative. So we then continue ...


Paul Continues With Silas:

Act_16:19 And when her masters saw that the hope of their gain went out, having seized Paul and Silas, they dragged them to the market before the rulers.

Act_16:25 And toward midnight Paul and Silas prayed and praised God in a hymn. And the prisoners listened to them.

Act_16:29 Then asking for a light he rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas.

Act_17:4 And some of them believed and joined themselves to Paul and Silas, both a great multitude of the worshiping Greeks, and not a few of the chief women.

Act_17:10 And the brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. They, when they arrived, went into the synagogue of the Jews.

Silas is with Paul up to this point, and this is when the 1st person narrative stops. The next verses show why:


Paul is Separated from Silas - 1st Person Narrative Stops:

Act 17:14 And then immediately the brothers sent Paul away to go towards the sea, but both Silas and Timothy stayed there.

The 1st person narrative ends when Silas and Paul are separated. Then we continue on a again ...


Silas Is Now Again With Paul:

Act 18:5 And when Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.

Silas is now back with paul, and then within a few verses the 1st person narrative resumes:

1st Person Narrative Resumes While Silas Is With Paul

Act_20:13 And going ahead onto the ship, we sailed to Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so he had appointed, intending himself to go on foot.

Act_20:14 And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in and came to Mitylene.

Act_20:15 And we sailed from there and came the next day across from Chios. And the next day we arrived at Samos, and we stayed at Trogyllium. And the next day we came to Miletus.

So who can we eliminate as also being a possible author and 1st persaon narrator?

Verses Below Eliminate Timothy As The Narrator, Since It Shows The 1st Person Narrative Stating That Timothy "waited for us in Troas."

Act 20:4 And Sopater of Berea accompanied him into Asia, and Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus as far as Asia.

Act 20:5 Going before, these waited for us at Troas.


So I will now briefly summarize my points on this.

Point 1: The 1st person narrative is only ever utilized when Silas is with Paul.

Point 2: When Silas is not with Paul, the 1st personal narrative ends until Silas is with Paul again.

Point 3: There is no mention of Luke at all in Acts.

Point 4: Timothy has been eliminated as the 1st person narrator.

Point 5: In many instances where the 1st person narrative is used, we see only Paul and Silas traveling together.

Point 6: Silas is not recorded as being separated from Paul again, and in instances were the actions of Paul alone are described- such as being imprisoned- the 1st person narrative or the word "we" are not used.


Conclusion:

The evidence indicates that the most likely candidate as the author of both the Gospel of Luke & Acts is none other than Silas.

I have cross checked this numerous times, and tried to debunk it and have not been successful.

But I need some of you who are well learned to check out my findings and see if you can either confirm what I have learned, or dispute it.

Either way works for me.

Thanks.

Hmm, I'm no expert, and I can't confirm or deny anything for you, but I suspect you should be using the original Greek translation for an inquiry of this sort.

Animavore wrote:Hmm, I'm no expert, and I can't confirm or deny anything for you, but I suspect you should be using the original Greek translation for an inquiry of this sort.

I have. In fact I have translated most of the NT. I have been doing it for more than 20 years.

Although I do not practice history, since my other skills are far more lucrative, I do have some qualifications as I minored in ancient religious history. I have always kept up on it because the subject has always kept me entertained.

Oh, alright so. Carry on

Free wrote:

Animavore wrote:Hmm, I'm no expert, and I can't confirm or deny anything for you, but I suspect you should be using the original Greek translation for an inquiry of this sort.

I have. In fact I have translated most of the NT. I have been doing it for more than 20 years.

Although I do not practice history, since my other skills are far more lucrative, I do have some qualifications as I minored in ancient religious history. I have always kept up on it because the subject has always kept me entertained.

Isn't basically 'Luke' used as a shorthand these days for "whoever wrote Luke and Acts", rather than a term that actually refers to an identifiable person about whom we know any identifiable biographical facts? Would replacing that name with Silas gives us any significant advantage? Is there any reliable information on Silas that goes beyond the information we have on Luke, or that differs significantly enough that using that name instead would be of any relevance?

As far as I can tell, these are just labels by now.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Free wrote:

Animavore wrote:Hmm, I'm no expert, and I can't confirm or deny anything for you, but I suspect you should be using the original Greek translation for an inquiry of this sort.

I have. In fact I have translated most of the NT. I have been doing it for more than 20 years.

Although I do not practice history, since my other skills are far more lucrative, I do have some qualifications as I minored in ancient religious history. I have always kept up on it because the subject has always kept me entertained.

Isn't basically 'Luke' used as a shorthand these days for "whoever wrote Luke and Acts", rather than a term that actually refers to an identifiable person about whom we know any identifiable biographical facts? Would replacing that name with Silas gives us any significant advantage? Is there any reliable information on Silas that goes beyond the information we have on Luke, or that differs significantly enough that using that name instead would be of any relevance?

As far as I can tell, these are just labels by now.

The only thing it really does is to provide a more accurate historical attribution. If Silas is the actual author, it can also open a few other doors for investigation. For example, the name Silas is thought to be a variation of the name of Silvanus, which could again open up a new door for discussion and investigation.

Yeah yeah, boring to the average person. But to a guy like me, it's like being on a hunt.

Reminds me though, of the old saw about the philosophy major writing a thesis that The Iliad wasn't actually written by Homer but by another Greek of the same name.

Onyx8 wrote:Reminds me though, of the old saw about the philosophy major writing a thesis that The Iliad wasn't actually written by Homer but by another Greek of the same name.

I understand that. But depending on how one views history, and depending on how interested one is, it's kind of like a hobby where one is trying to figure out a puzzle. It's really not just about the end result, but the journey to get there. The reward in this field is always the journey.

Any new discoveries is just a bonus.

And so far you have discovered that Luke's real name was Silas. And...

Onyx8 wrote:And so far you have discovered that Luke's real name was Silas. And...

And the hunt begins on Silas. Many scholars think he was actually Silvanus, which is a latinized version of Silas, and who is mentioned a few times in both the letters of Paul and Peter. I agree with them.

I also think that Silas was far more influential to the development of Christianity than many would be aware. In fact, if he is the author of Luke & Acts, then it could be argued that his influence is every bit as much as Paul's.

Digging deeper into Silas could give a greater understanding of this Christian belief system, and add some credible history to it. Hence, the point of attribution is merely to attract attention to him in the hopes of furthering investigation.

Fair enough. What else do we know of this guy? Is he mentioned extra-biblically by anyone?

Free wrote:

So I will now briefly summarize my points on this.

Point 1: The 1st person narrative is only ever utilized when Silas is with Paul.

Point 2: When Silas is not with Paul, the 1st personal narrative ends until Silas is with Paul again.

Point 3: There is no mention of Luke at all in Acts.

Point 4: Timothy has been eliminated as the 1st person narrator.

Point 5: In many instances where the 1st person narrative is used, we see only Paul and Silas traveling together.

Point 6: Silas is not recorded as being separated from Paul again, and in instances were the actions of Paul alone are described- such as being imprisoned- the 1st person narrative or the word "we" are not used.


Conclusion:

The evidence indicates that the most likely candidate as the author of both the Gospel of Luke & Acts is none other than Silas.

I have cross checked this numerous times, and tried to debunk it and have not been successful.

But I need some of you who are well learned to check out my findings and see if you can either confirm what I have learned, or dispute it.

Either way works for me.

Thanks.

The main problem with your hypothesis is that there is no real evidence that Acts of the Apostles is an historical account.

Acts of the Apostles mentions many events that could not have happened including the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the coming of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, Peter killing people by praying, and the bright light conversion story of Paul.

Essentially, there is no real evidence that Paul was with Silas or anyone in the 1st century.

In fact, there are many apologetic writers who appear to have no knowledge of Paul, Acts of the Apostles and Silas.

The stories about Paul and Silas in Acts of the Apostles are without corroboration in or out the Bible.

dejuror wrote:

Free wrote:

So I will now briefly summarize my points on this.

Point 1: The 1st person narrative is only ever utilized when Silas is with Paul.

Point 2: When Silas is not with Paul, the 1st personal narrative ends until Silas is with Paul again.

Point 3: There is no mention of Luke at all in Acts.

Point 4: Timothy has been eliminated as the 1st person narrator.

Point 5: In many instances where the 1st person narrative is used, we see only Paul and Silas traveling together.

Point 6: Silas is not recorded as being separated from Paul again, and in instances were the actions of Paul alone are described- such as being imprisoned- the 1st person narrative or the word "we" are not used.


Conclusion:

The evidence indicates that the most likely candidate as the author of both the Gospel of Luke & Acts is none other than Silas.

I have cross checked this numerous times, and tried to debunk it and have not been successful.

But I need some of you who are well learned to check out my findings and see if you can either confirm what I have learned, or dispute it.

Either way works for me.

Thanks.

The main problem with your hypothesis is that there is no real evidence that Acts of the Apostles is an historical account.

How is that a problem? The issue here is not whether or not it portrays actual history because obviously there are things written in there that are too far fetched. At best the Acts is an embellishment of the lives of Paul, Silas, and a few others. Embellishments of this kind are found everywhere in the ancient past.

The point here is to discover who wrote it.

Acts of the Apostles mentions many events that could not have happened including the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the coming of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, Peter killing people by praying, and the bright light conversion story of Paul.

In actual historicity, all that is irrelevant. History is more than just determining what is true or not true. To the seasoned historian, the book of Acts is a historical work which demonstrates the ancient beliefs of the early Christians. What you are reading when you are reading Acts is a book which demonstrates the beliefs they held some 2000 years ago.

As skeptics, we can immediately determine what has been embellished with ease.

Essentially, there is no real evidence that Paul was with Silas or anyone in the 1st century.

Yes there is. Paul mentioned him in his letters.

In fact, there are many apologetic writers who appear to have no knowledge of Paul, Acts of the Apostles and Silas.

That's irrelevant, and an argument from silence. Not saying an argument from silence cannot be justified, but to justify yours you will need to show just cause why the apologetic writers would need to mention Paul. Also, Clement mentioned Paul in 1st Clement, and he was a contemporary of both Paul and Jesus. He also mentioned Jesus. He died near the end of the 1st century.

The stories about Paul and Silas in Acts of the Apostles are without corroboration in or out the Bible.

Some are corroborated with the letters of Paul.

dejuror wrote:

The main problem with your hypothesis is that there is no real evidence that Acts of the Apostles is an historical account.

Free wrote:
How is that a problem? The issue here is not whether or not it portrays actual history because obviously there are things written in there that are too far fetched. At best the Acts is an embellishment of the lives of Paul, Silas, and a few others. Embellishments of this kind are found everywhere in the ancient past.

The point here is to discover who wrote it.

I am extremely surprised that you do not understand that the veracity of Acts of the Apostles must be taken into account if you want to argue that Silas wrote gLuke and Acts.

For example, it is claimed in the NT that Satan was in conversation with Jesus at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and that the angel Gabriel was in Nazareth talking to Mary however there is no evidence at all that those events are historical.

There is also no evidence that anything in the NT with Paul and Silas did happen and no evidence that gLuke and Acts were written in the 1st century.

The earliest hand-written manuscript of gLuke is dated to probably around c 175-225 CE.

The earliest hand-written manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are dated to 175-225 CE.

In effect, the existing hand-written manuscripts of gLuke and Acts were not written by Silas if he lived in the 1st century.

By the way, which variant version of gLuke and Acts are you referring to?

Papyri 4, Papyri 8, Papyri 42 or Papyri 75?

Please identify which manuscripts were supposedly written by Silas??

You should be aware that there are multiple variant versions of gLuke and Acts written at diferent times!!!

dejuror wrote:

dejuror wrote:

The main problem with your hypothesis is that there is no real evidence that Acts of the Apostles is an historical account.

Free wrote:
How is that a problem? The issue here is not whether or not it portrays actual history because obviously there are things written in there that are too far fetched. At best the Acts is an embellishment of the lives of Paul, Silas, and a few others. Embellishments of this kind are found everywhere in the ancient past.

The point here is to discover who wrote it.

I am extremely surprised that you do not understand that the veracity of Acts of the Apostles must be taken into account if you want to argue that Silas wrote gLuke and Acts.

Perhaps what you may need is to understand that there are more ways to view things other than black and white.

From a modern perspective, you need to understand that when books such as Acts were written, that the writer almost certainly believed that what he was writing was the absolute truth. He had no doubt at all in his mind that what he was writing actually happened.

In such an ancient world, particularly in a world where gods existed on every street corner, there was simply no doubt that the supernatural was a reality to those ancient people.

The ancient people back then were in constant competition with each other to demonstrate how they were personally favored over others by their gods. What we consider folk stories today in regards to Moses, Adam & Eve, David etc, were indisputable truths to those people. Ancient supposed prophets before the time of Paul were revered, and everybody and his brother wanted to be somebody great in the eyes of their peers.

So someone would make up a miracle story, and send it out as a rumor, and then someone else would add a few historical facts to it, and voila, you have some embellished history. You see, they were story tellers, but in order to sell the story to the masses they had to make it incredible because the masses would eat, sleep, and drink anything about any gods. The entire Jewish/Greco-Roman culture had an insatiable appetite for the supernatural, so embellishing some verifiable history with a little supernatural mumbo jumbo was a great way to advance a religious ideology back in those days. In fact, we still see this happening today in the modern world.

We today cannot place a modern perspective upon an ancient culture. We cannot even understand such a culture with our modern perspective. To understand that culture you need to get yourself into the mindset of those people, and you can only do that with extensive study.

You need to understand the culture before you can understand the history, and once you understand both the history and culture from its ancient perspective, you will see these ancient documents such as Acts, Gospels, and the letters from a far more educated and completely enlightened point of view.

I really cannot explain this to you any other way, but in short, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

There's more truth to that saying than you think.

I will address more of what you said in a later post, if i feel it necessary.

dejuror wrote:

I am extremely surprised that you do not understand that the veracity of Acts of the Apostles must be taken into account if you want to argue that Silas wrote gLuke and Acts.

Free wrote:
Perhaps what you may need is to understand that there are more ways to view things other than black and white.

From a modern perspective, you need to understand that when books such as Acts were written, that the writer almost certainly believed that what he was writing was the absolute truth. He had no doubt at all in his mind that what he was writing actually happened.

It is you who is viewing things in black and white. From a modern perspective it has already been deduced that Acts of the Apostles is fiction.

You have no actual evidence that the author of Acts thought he was writing absolute truth. There are events in Acts of the Apostles that did not and could not have happened.

There is no evidence at all that the author of Acts was writing historical accounts.

Free wrote:In such an ancient world, particularly in a world where gods existed on every street corner, there was simply no doubt that the supernatural was a reality to those ancient people.

Your statement is irrelevant since Paul and Silas are not depicted as supernatural beings.

You need to present non-apologetic contemporary evidence from antiquity that Paul and Silas were actual figures of history.

You will not be able to present any contemporary evidence to show that Paul and Silas did live and that Silas did write gLuke and Acts.

Free wrote:So someone would make up a miracle story, and send it out as a rumor, and then someone else would add a few historical facts to it, and voila, you have some embellished history.

So someone would fabricate stories about characters called Paul and Silas, and send it out as a rumor, and then someone else would add more fiction ["facts"] and voila, you have Acts of the Apostles???

Free wrote:We today cannot place a modern perspective upon an ancient culture. We cannot even understand such a culture with our modern perspective. To understand that culture you need to get yourself into the mindset of those people, and you can only do that with extensive study.

What?? Why are you telling me this in the 21st century? You have the mindset of those ancient people?? Are you not giving us your modern perspective?

Free wrote:You need to understand the culture before you can understand the history, and once you understand both the history and culture from its ancient perspective, you will see these ancient documents such as Acts, Gospels, and the letters from a far more educated and completely enlightened point of view.

You don't understand that gLuke and Acts are fiction. Maybe you understand culture but the stories in gLuke and Acts are not historical accounts.

Paul and Silas are invented fiction characters in Acts and without a shred of history outside Church writings.

Again, please identify the manuscripts which you believe was written by Silas?

Is it Papyri 4, Papyri 8, Papyri 41, Papyri 42, Papyri 48, Papyri 75.........????

dejuror wrote:

dejuror wrote:

I am extremely surprised that you do not understand that the veracity of Acts of the Apostles must be taken into account if you want to argue that Silas wrote gLuke and Acts.

Free wrote:
Perhaps what you may need is to understand that there are more ways to view things other than black and white.

From a modern perspective, you need to understand that when books such as Acts were written, that the writer almost certainly believed that what he was writing was the absolute truth. He had no doubt at all in his mind that what he was writing actually happened.

It is you who is viewing things in black and white. From a modern perspective it has already been deduced that Acts of the Acts of the Apostles is fiction.

You have no actual evidence that the author of Acts thought he was writing absolute truth. There are events in Acts of the Apostles that did not and could not have happened.

There is no evidence at all that the author of Acts was writing historical accounts.

Free wrote:In such an ancient world, particularly in a world where gods existed on every street corner, there was simply no doubt that the supernatural was a reality to those ancient people.

Your statement is irrelevant since Paul and Silas are not depicted as supernatural beings.

You need to present non-apologetic contemporary evidence from antiquity that Paul and Silas were actual figures of history.

You will not be able to present any contemporary evidence to show that Paul and Silas did live and that Silas did write gLuke and Acts.

Free wrote:So someone would make up a miracle story, and send it out as a rumor, and then someone else would add a few historical facts to it, and voila, you have some embellished history.

So someone would fabricate stories about characters called Paul and Silas, and send it out as a rumor, and then someone else would add more fiction ["facts"] and voila, you have Acts of the Apostles???

Free wrote:We today cannot place a modern perspective upon an ancient culture. We cannot even understand such a culture with our modern perspective. To understand that culture you need to get yourself into the mindset of those people, and you can only do that with extensive study.

What?? Why are you telling me this in the 21st century? You have the mindset of those ancient people?? Are you not giving us your modern perspective?

Free wrote:You need to understand the culture before you can understand the history, and once you understand both the history and culture from its ancient perspective, you will see these ancient documents such as Acts, Gospels, and the letters from a far more educated and completely enlightened point of view.

You don't understand that gLuke and Acts are fiction. Maybe you understand culture but the stories in gLuke and Acts are not historical accounts.

Paul and Silas are invented fiction characters in Acts and without a shred of history outside Church writings.

Again, please identify the manuscripts which you believe was written by Silas?

Is it Papyri 4, Papyri 8, Papyri 41, Papyri 42, Papyri 48, Papyri 75.........????

Well all I can say to you is that it is obvious to me you do not have the education to understand what I am saying. Whatever conversation you are attempting to get out of this discussion clearly has something to do with your rather clear position on Jesus Mythicism, as your previous posts on this forum have indicated.

This is not the thread for that discussion. I am not interested whatsoever in any such frivolous discussion.

I'll await more scholarly inquiries.

Thank you.

dejuror wrote:

Again, please identify the manuscripts which you believe was written by Silas?

Is it Papyri 4, Papyri 8, Papyri 41, Papyri 42, Papyri 48, Papyri 75.........????

Free wrote:
Well all I can say to you is that it is obvious to me you do not have the education to understand what I am saying. Whatever conversation you are attempting to get out of this discussion clearly has something to do with your rather clear position on Jesus Mythicism, as your previous posts on this forum have indicated.

Well, I can say that you do not seem to have the education to understand that gLuke and Acts of the Apostles are known fictional accounts.

You cannot even identify the manuscripts which you believe were written by Silas.

Since you arguing that Silas wrote gLuke and Acts then you MUST identify the manuscripts.

You cannot do so.

Free wrote:This is not the thread for that discussion. I am not interested whatsoever in any such frivolous discussion.

This forum was not intiated for assumptions. Please identify the manuscripts, the Papyri, the Codex, that you believe Silas wrote?
We will wait for your answer.

dejuror wrote:

dejuror wrote:

Again, please identify the manuscripts which you believe was written by Silas?

Is it Papyri 4, Papyri 8, Papyri 41, Papyri 42, Papyri 48, Papyri 75.........????

Free wrote:
Well all I can say to you is that it is obvious to me you do not have the education to understand what I am saying. Whatever conversation you are attempting to get out of this discussion clearly has something to do with your rather clear position on Jesus Mythicism, as your previous posts on this forum have indicated.

Well, I can say that you do not seem to have the education to understand that gLuke and Acts of the Apostles are known fictional accounts.

You cannot even identify the manuscripts which you believe were written by Silas.

Since you arguing that Silas wrote gLuke and Acts then you MUST identify the manuscripts.

You cannot do so.

Free wrote:This is not the thread for that discussion. I am not interested whatsoever in any such frivolous discussion.

This forum was not intiated for assumptions. Please identify the manuscripts, the Papyri, the Codex, that you believe Silas wrote?
We will wait for your answer.

You can wait for it, but you won't get it.

I have reviewed your posts on this forum, and it's clear to me that you are really not interested in this discussion. Your favorite topic is disputing the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth by holding a total myth position. Judging by your posts, you are biased insomuch as to derail the object of this discussion.

Again, I will not discuss this topic with you.