Torah Focus

Silvanus:

The name Silvanus appears four times in the Nazarene Codicil. (2 Co. 1:19, 1 Thess. 1:1 2 Thess. 1:1, 1 Pet. 5:12) Who is this Silvanus? First, we know that he is a scribe. The hand of Silvanus wrote this document of Hakham Tsefet (1st Peter). While some scholars would like to suggest that there is no connection between the Silas of Hakham Tsefet (Peter) and Hakham Shaul (Paul) the idea is absurd. They are all the same person. His Eminence has pointed out all the possibilities for the name Silvanus. Other scholars readily admit that Silvanus must be the same scribe used by Hakham Shaul. This scribe has are readily been mentioned throughout the Scriptures. What fascinates me about this verse is the fact that both Hakham Tsefet and Hakham Shaul both initially used the same scribe. I would surmise a couple of things from this verse.

1. Silvanus (Luke/Silas) was already a trained scribe when Hakham Tsefet uses him to write this authoritative document.
   
2. Secondly, that Marcus (the scribe who writes “Mark”) appears to be a scribe in training now.
   

While that latter point is conjecture, it seems logical that the elder train the junior scribe. This all fits the theme, which we have followed in the previous two pericope.

Here I would purport that Silvanus (Silas / Luke) was the scribe of Hakham Tsefet and then later the scribe of Hakham Shaul, which I believe speaks volumes. This would account for a great number of similarities in writing styles and use of specific vocabulary. We could imagine the value of having a well-trained scribe. Silvanus (Silas –Luke) would have been well versed in Hakham Tsefet’s vocabulary, writing style and content. This would be like having Hakham Tsefet’s virtual library at your disposal when writing, studying and lecturing.

I have conjectured that the time Hakham Shaul spent under the tutelage of Hakham Tsefet was far greater than is mentioned in his accounts. There is a possible mention of this in Hakham Shaul’s letter to the Galatians. In this letter, Hakham Shaul tells us that he spent “fifteen days” with Hakham Tsefet. Because the letter of Galatians is not P’shat, we realize that the “fifteen days” does not have to be a literal “fifteen days.” There remains that remote possibility that the “fifteen days” was actually fifteen years. This number closely corresponds with the amount of time that Hakham Shaul spends with the interval of “fourteen years” mentioned in Galatians 2:1. I have conjectured that Hakham Shaul served as the Talmid to Hakham Tsefet for this extended period. This would account for the vast understanding the Hakham Shaul has of Tsefet’s p’shat. This p’shat would be priceless to Hakham Shaul later as he builds his Gemara – remez materials. This further reinforces the system of rabbinic hermeneutics. It demonstrates that power and vitality of p’shat. P’shat is the foundation on which all arguments for subsequent knowledge stand. Without p’shat, there can be not, remez, midrash or sod. All of these interpretations and elucidations sit firmly on the foundation of p’shat.

While I realize there is some conjecture and thesis, concerning Hakham Shaul being the talmid of Hakham Tsefet, we give the alternative to Hakham Tsefet’s vast understanding of Messiah as revealed through Hakham Shaul in the present pericope. Again, Silvanus is the scribe of Hakham Tsefet later used by Hakham Shaul. Likewise, Hakham Shaul possessed the entire library of p’shat in the person of Silvanus.

I believe that many scholars who have noted that Silvanus was the scribe of Hakham Shaul has put the “cart before the horse” so to speak. The scholarly opinion suggests that Silvanus was the scribe of Hakham Shaul before he was the scribe of Hakham Tsefet. In my scholarly opinion, the reverse is actually true. These ideas suggest the idea that Hakham Shaul is superior to Hakham Tsefet. I must concur with His Eminence that the triad of Yaakov, Yochanan and Tsefet formed the superstructure of the Nazarene movement. This means that Hakham Tsefet was one of the preeminent members of the Nazarene authority. In the book Acts, we are told in that Shaul was a “young man” at the stoning of Stephen. The language of Acts mirrors that of last week’s pericope where the Hakham Tsefet exhorts “younger” “neōteroi” to submit to the Elder. From this and the material presented in Acts, we must determine that Shaul was a Pakid during that time. His Eminence pointed out to me that Hakham Tsefet would have become a Hakham on Lag B Omer in the year of Yeshua’ ascension. Therefore, it is more likely that Silvanus is the scribe of Hakham Tsefet before his serves Hakham Shaul.

This week I was looking at a cryptic verse in Yaakov (James). I consulted a couple of commentaries, which purported that Yaakov borrowed from Hakham Shaul. All of this made me sick! Please understand that I am not demeaning Hakham Shaul. Again, I reiterate that that these scholars have put the “cart before the horse.” You MUST have a foundation before you can build. Hakham Shaul could NEVER have written his Gemara – Remez without a p’shat. All of this demonstrates that fact that the materials of Hakham Shaul are NOT built on thin air. Close investigation of the Gemara will demonstrate my point immediately.

Mishnah (p’shat) Berakhot1:1 From what time may they recite the Shema in the evening? From the hour that the priests enter [their homes] to eat their heave offering, “until the end of the first watch”— the words of R. Eliezer. But sages say, “Until midnight.” Rabban Gamaliel says, “Until the rise of dawn.” M’H Š: His [Gamaliel's] sons returned from a banquet hall [after midnight]. They said to him, “We did not [yet] recite the Shema.

Gemara (remez) Berakhot 1A. On what basis does the Tannaite authority stand when he begins by teaching the rule, “From what time…,” [in the assumption that the religious duty to recite the Shema has somewhere been established? In point of fact, it has not been established that people have to recite the Shema at all.]

Even the novice can see the point made here. The Gemara – remez builds on the text and structure of materials already written.

Therefore, I conclude that Silvanus was a great prize to Hakham Shaul. He possessed the library of Hakham Tsefet in personal form. One can imagine the power this gave Hakham Shaul. Rather than having to communicate extensively with Hakham Tsefet on matters of the p’shat of Hakham Tsefet Hakham Shaul would simply ask Silvanus.