Silas – Sehplicity

Silas

Silas (Acts) and SILVANtrS (Epistles).— There can be little doubt that the Silvanus of the Pauline Epistles (2 Corinthians 1:19, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:1) is the same as the Silas of Acts.

Probably Silas is an abbreviation, like Lntcas (Luke), Hernias, ATnplias, Efiaphras, Nymphas, etc. In Acts we find many such familiar names (cf . esp. Prisdlla in Acta = Prisca Romans 16:3 RV, Sopater Acts 20:4 = Sosipater Romans 16:21). We might indeed have expected ‘Silvas’ not ‘Silas,’ but these abbreviations are very irregular. It has been suggested that Silas was the real name, and of Semitic origin, while Silvanus was adopted for a Roman name as being similar in sound; but then we should have expected for the latter ‘Silanus,’ not Silvanus.

Silas was a Christian prophet (Acts 15:32), one of the ‘chief men among the brethren’ (therefore doubtless of Jewish birth), who with ‘Judas called Barsabbas’ was sent as a delegate from the Apostolic Council with Paul and Barnabas, to convey the decision of the Council (15:22 ff.). He was also probably a Roman citizen (16:37), though this inference is denied by some. It is uncertain if he returned from Antioch to Jerusalem (15:34 is of doubtful authenticity), but in any case he was soon after chosen by Paul to go with him on the Second Journey, taking Barnabas’ place, while Timothy afterwards took John Mark’s. For this work Silas’ double qualification as a leading Jewish Christian and a Roman citizen would eminently fit him. He accompanied Paul through S. Galatia to Troas, Philippi (where he was imprisoned), Thessalonica, and Beroea. When Paul went to Athens, Silas and Timothy were left behind, perhaps to bring the latest news (rem Thessalonica (in case it was possible for the Apostle to return thither), with injunctions to follow at once; and this they probably did. But they seem to have been sent back on a mission to Macedonia (1 Thessalonians 3:1: Paul was ‘left behind at Athens alone’), Timothy to Thessalonica, Silas perhaps to Philippi; they rejoined Paul at Corinth, and are associated with him in the letters, probably written thence, to the Thessalonians. Here Silas disappears from the Pauline history. But there is no reason for suspecting a defection lilie that of Mark; the cordial reference to his former preaching in 2 Corinthians 1:19 (written on the Third Journey) contradicts this. We afterwards find him attending on St. Peter, acting as bearer and perhaps scribe of his First Epistle (1 Peter 5:12) for there is no reason to suppose that the Petrine Mark and Silvanus were other than those connected with St. Paul. Whether this attendance was before or after the death of St. Paul depends on the date we give to 1 Peter; see a full Excursus in Dr. Bigg’s edition of that Epistle. A. J. Maclean.

Silk

See Dhess, 1.

Silla

The servants of king Joash smote him ‘at the house of Millo [read rather’ at Beth-Millo ‘] on the way that goeth down to Silla’ (2 K 12»). Where or what Silla may have been there is nothing to show. The LXX reads Gaalla or Gaallad. E. A. S. Macalistek.

Siloah

Siloah (‘waters of Shiloah,’ Isaiah 8:6; ‘pool of Siloah’ [RV Shelah], Nehemiah 3:15; ‘tower in Siloam,’ Luke 13:4; ‘pool of Siloam,’ John 9:7; probably identical with the ‘king’s pool’ of Nehemiah 2:14). — The name survives to-day in Silwin, the name of the village which occupies the steep E. slopes of the valley of the Kldron from opposite the ‘Virgin’s Fount’ (Gihon) to near Blr Byyub (En-rogel). The village consists of a northern, older section inhabited by Moslem fellahln, and a small, southern quarter belonging to immigrant Yemenite Jews from Arabia, while still farther down the valley is an isolated row of huts allotted to the lepers. All the site now occupied by the fellahln has been built upon in ancient times, and the whole area is riddled with cave dwellings, cisterns, rock-cut steps, and ancient tombs. Some of the caves have apparently served the purposes successively of tombs and chapels, while to-day they are dwellings or store-houses. It may be considered as certain that in NT times, and probably for some centuries earlier, there was a considerable village in this situation. The ‘tower’ which fell (Luke 13:4) may have been a building similar to many to-day perched on the edge of the precipitous rocks above the Kldron. Immediately across the valley, to the N. of Siloam, in the very bed of the Kidron, is the Virgin’s Fount (see Gihon), the original spring of Jerusalem. In early times the water of this spring, alter probably filling a pool here, ran down the valley; at a later period the surplus supply was conducted by an aqueduct built along the N. side of the valley (partially excavate’d near its W. end), to a spot where is situated to-day a dry pool known as Birket el-Hamra. Remains of this aqueduct have been traced. As the water supply was, under this arrangement, vulnerable to attack, king Hezekiah ‘stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David’ (2 Chronicles 32; cf. 32:4, 2 Kings 20:20). The work thus described is the famous Siloam tunnel, 1700 feet long. This runs in an extraordinarily serpentine course from the Virgin’s Fount, and opens in the Tyropoeon Valley under the name ‘Ain Silw&n, or the’ Spring of Siloam,’ to pour its waters into the pool known as Birket es-SilwS/n, or the ‘Pool of Siloam." These may have been’ the waters of Shiloah that go softly,’ a great contrast to the mighty Euphrates (Isaiah 8:6, 7). Close to the lower opening of the tunnel was found, in 1880, a Heb. inscription giving an account of the completion of the work. Although undated, there is every reason to believe that this is a contemporary account of Hezekiah’s work, and if so, it is the oldest Heb. inscription known.

The original Pool of Siloam, of which the present Birket occupies but a part, was excavated by Dr. F. Bliss, and was shown to have been a rock-cut reservoir 71 feet N. to S. by 75 feet E. to W.; and just outside its W. edge was found a flight of ancient rock-cut steps, probably those mentioned in Nehemiah 3:15. A covered arcade, 12 feet wide, had been built, probably about NT times, round the four sides of the pool, and a division ran across the centre to separate the sexes when bathing. Such was probably the condition of the pool at the time of the events of John 9:7. The surplus water of the pool leaves by a sluice at its S. end, and traverses a rock-cut channel to reach the gardens of the Siloam villagers. S. of the Birket es-Silwan is a walled-in area which in recent times was a kind of cesspool for the city, the sewage coming down the Tyropoeon Valley (now diverted to its proper sewer again) being there stopped by a great dam across the valley. On this dam, at one period, ran the city wall, and Dr. Bliss proved by excavations that it was supported by buttresses of great strength. The area shut off by this dam is the so-called ‘lower Pool of Siloam’ or Birket el-Hamra, and may have been used at one time to store surplus waters from the upper pool. Probably it was the ‘reservoir’ (RV) or ‘ditch’ ( AV) ‘between the two walls, for the water of the old pool’ (Isaiah 22:11). that is, the reservoir to which the water from the ‘old pool’ at Gihon was conducted by the earlier aqueduct referred to above, while the dam itself is with some probability considered to be the ‘wall of the pool of Siloah by the’ king’s garden’ (Nehemiah 3:15). The water of the ‘Ain Silwdn is naturally, like that of its source (Gihon), brackish and impregnated with sewage; it also runs intermittently.

E. W. G. Mastekman.

Silvanus

See Silas.

Silver

See Mining and Metals.

Silverling

Only Isaiah 7:23. where the original reads ‘a thousand of silver,’ the denomination to be supplied being ‘shekels’ (see Money, p. 628i>).

Simeon

(Lk3»», Acts 13:1 IS" Symeon). 1. The second son of Jacob and Leah (Genesis 29:33 [J]). By R he, together with Levi, is closely related to Dinah, she being a full sister (cf. 34). From Genesis 30:20 (E) we learn that he had five full brothers, but we are not told how many other sisters or half-sisters he had. J (Genesis 37:35) speaks of ‘air Jacob’s’ daughters,’ but their names are nowhere recorded (cf. 46:7 [P]). J, who is specially inclined to etymologizing (see RVm of Genesis 3:20 4:1, 25 5:29 ll^ 16:11, 14 etc.), connects the name, as in the case of Reuben, with Jacob’s ‘hatred’ of Leah: ‘Because Jahweh hath heard (shdma’) that I am hated, etc., and she called his name Shim’ dn ‘(29:33). The meaning of the name is unknown, but it has been connected by many scholars with the Arabic sim’, the hybrid offspring of the hyaena and the female wolf. This word sim’ appears as a tribal name among the Arabs, and it is well knovm that numerous tribal names are those of animals; Leah and Rachel probably belong to this class. In such cases the names probably point to the totem worship of the ancestors. If the name appears, as is supposed by some scholars, in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon, it may be of importance in connexion with the history of the tribe, but no light is derived from the form as to its meaning.

In the Blessing of Jacob (Genesis 49) Simeon is coupled with Levi (wh. see) as sharing in the curse of Jacob and in the consequent dispersion of the tribe among the other tribes of Israel. This is an indication that at the time the ‘Blessing’ was composed, the tribe was practically dissolved. P’s census of the tribes ascribes 69,300 fighting men to Simeon at Sinai (Numbers 1:23). At Moab there were only 22,200 (26:14) another indication of the future fortune of the tribe. Jg !’• " makes Simeon join with Judah, at the latter’s request, in malting the first attaclc upon the Canaanites, over whom they won a decisive victory at Bezels:. Judah in return was to aid Simeon in gaining his possession. Together they attacked and defeated the inhabitants of Zephathhormah. Hormah is connected with Arad (Numbers 21) about 17 miles to the S.E. of Hebron. Hormah in Joshua 15 is assigned to the tribe of Judah, but re-appears in 19:4 as a city of eimeon. We are not told in Judges of the settlement of Simeon, but it is implied in the Dinah story (Genesis 34) that both he and Levi secured a temporary foothold about Shechem, On account of their treachery, however, they were dispossessed and well-nigh annihilated by the revenge taken upon them by the Canaanites. Levi was permanently shattered; Simeon, however, managed to recover sufficiently to establish itself on the southern border of Judah. There, however; they came into contact with nomad tribes of Edomites and Arabs — a circumstance which doubtless contributed to their failure to rehabilitate themselves and win a permanent abode among the original occupants of the land. They are not mentioned in the Song of Deborah (Judges 5), but this may be accounted for by their position. ?udah also had no part in that important struggle, and is passed over in silence. In historical times nothing is heard of them, and the conclusion is justified that they eventually became merged with the neighbouring tribes, and were later, with them, absorbed by Judah, as Reuben was afterwards by Gad. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the cities which are assigned to Simeon in the list given in Joshua 19:1–9 re-appear elsewhere as cities of Judah (cf. Jos l5»-»2. 1 Kings 19:3, Nehemiah 11. 1 Samuel 27:6 30:30). In connexion with David’s ventures to win over the Edomites and other tribes to the south, the name of Simeon does not appear, as might have been expected if the tribe had preserved its solidarity. According to 1 Chronicles 4: Simeouites advanced against Gedor and Mt. Seir, in the time of Hezekiah apparently, and there secured permanent possessions. Instead of Gedor, the LXX reads Gerar, the name of the Philistine city of Abimelech. It must be admitted that our sources are too uncertain and^ too indefinite to enable us to speak decisively on almost any point of interest in connexion with this tribe. On the one hand, too much credence is given to statements of late writers, as though they furnished indubitable evidence; on the other hand, far-reaching conclusions are often drawn from fragmentary and isolated expressions, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, which are little warranted. See also Tribes of Ishael.

2. The great-grandfather of Judas MaocabseusCl 2:1). 3. The ‘righteous and devout’ (dikaios kai euldbis) man who took the infant Jesus in his arms and blessed Him, on the occasion of the presentation in the Temple (Luke 2:25 ff.). . The notion that this Simeon is to be identified with a Rabbi who was the son of Hillel and the father of Gamaliel i. is very precarious. James A. Chaiq.

Simon

(a Greek form of Simeon). 1. Simon Chosameus, who was found to have a ‘strange’ wife (1 Esdras 9:32 =Ezr 10:31 Simeon). 2. The subject of the encomium in Sirach 50:1 ff.; ‘son of Onias, the great (or high) priest.’ It is doubtful if Simon I. or Simon II . (both 3rd cent. B.C.) is meant. 3. The Maccabaean high priest and ethnarch, son of Mattathias, slain by his son-in-law Ptolemy, b.c. 135 (1 Maccabees 16:16; see Maccabees, 4). 4. A Benjamite, guardian of the Temple in the time of Onias III., who suggested to ApoUonius, the governor, to plunder it (2 Maccabees 3:4). 5. See Peter. 6. See Simon Magus. 7. Simon the Canansan, one of the Twelve (Matthew 10:4. Mark 3:18). The surname is an Aramaic equivalent of • Zealot’ (Luke 6, Acts 1). 8. See Brethren op the Lord. 9. Simon the Leper, our Lord’s host at Bethany (Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3; cf. John 12:2). possibly husband or father of Martha, doubtless cured of his leprosy at some time before the anointing by Mary (cf. Mart, 2). 10. The Pharisee who was our Lord’s host when the sinful woman anointed Him (Luke 7:40). The contradictions between these two stories are so great that it is difl[icult to suppose that they relate the same event in different versions. Two such incidents may well have happened, and one may have suggested the other (cf . Mary, 2) . 11 . Father, or brother, of Judas Iscariot, himself surnamed Iscariot (John 6:71 13:26 ‘Judas of Simon Iscariot,’ 13:2 ‘Judas Iscariot of Simon’). 12. The Cyrenian who bore our Lord’s cross (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26) see Alexander and RuFus. The followers of Basilides in the 2nd cent, said that Simon was crucified instead of Jesus. 13. The tanner, Peter’s host at Joppa (Acts 9:43).

A. J. Maclean

SmON MAGUS.— Mentioned in Acts 8:9–24, and described as using sorcery in Samaria and thereby amazing the people. He claimed to be ‘some great one,’ and wis regarded by all as ‘that power of God which is called Great.’ When Philip reached Samaria, and, preaching the gospel, gathered many into the Church, Simon also fell under the influence of his message. We are told that he ‘believed,’ which cannot mean less than that he recognized that the Evangelist exerted, in the name of Jesus Christ, powers the reality of which he could not deny, and the efficacy of which ‘amazed’ him. He therefore sought baptism, and, being baptized, continued with Philip. The Apostles Peter and John came down to Samaria to establish the work begun by Philip, and by the laying on of their hands gave the Holy Ghost to the converts. This was no doubt evidenced by the miraculous gifts which were vouchsafed by God to His Church during its early years. The shallowness of Simon’s belief was now shown, for he offered to buy from the Apostles the power of conferring the Holy Ghost. Peter rebuked him in language of such sternness as to lead him to beg of the Apostle to pray that the judgment of God might not fall upon him for his sin.

Simon holds the unenviable position of being the one outstanding heretic in the NT: and from then until now his character has been held in particular odium. Ignatius, the earliest of the Fathers, calls him ‘the firstborn- of Satan’: Irenseus marks him out as the first of all heretics: and later centuries have shown their sense of the greatness of his sin by using the word simony to indicate the crime of procuring a spiritual office by purchase. Justin Martyr mentions three times in his Apology, and once in his Dialogue, a Simon as a leader of an heretical sect. He states that Gitta, a village in Samaria, was his birthplace, and speaks of him as visiting Rome, and being so successful in his magical impostures as to have secured worship for himself as God, and to have been honoured with a statue, which bore the inscription Simoni Deo Sancto (‘to Simon the Holy God’). He further mentions that ‘almost all the Samaritans, and even a few of other nations,’ worshipped him as "first God’ (cf. Acts 8:10 ‘this man is that power of God which is called Great’). He also adds that Helena, a fallen woman who accompanied him, was ‘the first idea generated by him.’ Justin does not specifically identify this Simon with the Simon of the Acts, but there can be no reasonable doubt that he held them to be one and the same.

There was discovered in Rome in 1574 the base of astatue bearing the inscription ‘Semoni Sanco Deo fidio sacrum Sex. Pompejtia . . . donum dedit.’ It is therefore ^generally assumedj and no doubt correctly, that Justin, being shown by the Simonians at Rome tiiis statue of the Sabine deity Semo Sancus, was led to believe erroneously that it had been erected in honour of Simon. But this error of his regarding what had occurred in Rome need not invalidate his statements regarding Simon himself in Samaria and the progress and tenets of his sect, for he himself was a Samaritan and thus cognizant of the facts. Ireneeus deals more fully with Simon and his followers, though there is good reason for assuming that he is really indebted to a lost work of Justin for his information. He directly identifies him with the Simon of Acts 8, places him first in his list of heretics, and makes him the father of Gnosticism. From the account he gives of the doctrines of the Simonians, it is clear that by his time they had developed into a system of Gnosticism: but it is very doubtful whether he is right in making the Simon of the NT the first setter forth of Gnostic myths. The beginning of Gnosticism is very obscure, but we may be fairly certain that it had not arisen as early as the scenes described in Acts 8. The Simonian doctrines as given by Irenffius are therefore doubtless developmcTiis of the heretical teaching of Simon, which, even from the short account in the Acts, would seem to have lent itself readily to Gnostic accretions. As time went on many fanciful additions were made to his history, until in the 4th cent, the legend reached its completeness. Throughout these romances Simon is found travelling about from place to place in constant opposition to Peter, uttering calumnies against the Apostle; but being pursued by Peter he is ultimately vanquished and discredited. The earlier forms of the story lay the scene of the travels chiefiy in Asia Minor, and describe the final confiict as taking place at Antioch. The later forms, however, make Rome, in the days of Nero, the ultimate goal of the journeyings. Here Simon is said to have met his death through his confiict ■with Peter or with Peter and Paul. By one tradition the magician, seeing his influence waning, desired his followers to bury him in a grave, promising to rise again the third day. They obeyed, and he perished, for, as Hippolytus adds, ‘he was not the Christ.’ By another tradition Simon is depicted as deciding to give to the Emperor a crowning proof of his magical powers by attempting to fly off to God. He is reported to have flown for a certain distance over Rome, but, through Peter’s prayers, to have fallen and broken his leg, and to have been ultimately stoned to death by the populace. Another form of the tradition represented Paul as a companion of Peter in the contest, and as praying while Peter adjured the demons that supported Simon in his flight, in the name of God and of Jesus Christ, to uphold him no longer. Simon thereupon fell to the earth and perished.

Renewed interest in the history of Simon was aroused in modem times by Baur’s maintaining that in the Clementine literature, where the most developed form of the legend occurs, Simon is intended to represent not the actual Simon of the Acts, but rather Paul, whom he (Baur) conceived to have been fiercely opposed theologically to^Peter. Full information on this theory may be found in Hastings’ DB iv. 523f ., where its unsoundness is shown. It may be said to be now generally rejected.

It should be added that Hippolytus ascribes a work entitled ‘The Great Revelation’ to Simon, and quotes largely from it; and that the sect of the Simonians did not long survive, for Origen states that he did not believe that there were in his day thirty of them in existence.

Chakles T. p. Ghieeson.

Sehplicity

:— 1. In the OT ‘simple’ is, with one exception, the translation of a word (ptthi), whose root-idea is ‘openness.’ Openness of mind is praiseworthy when it implies willingness to receive instruction; it becomes blameworthy when it connotes a disposition equally receptive of good and of evil, or an incapacity to distinguish between right and wrong. In Proverbs ‘the simple’ are represented as needing ‘prudence’ (1* RVm), and they are exhorted to ‘understand prudence’(8> RVm). In 14"- ’ the prudent’ are favourably contrasted with ‘the simple’ who ‘believe every word,’ and therefore ‘inherit folly.’ It is ‘the testimony of the Lord’ that makes the simple wise (Psalms 19:7; cf. I IQ""). In 2 Samuel 15:11 ‘simplicity’ means ‘integrity’ (fBm). In the LXX the Heb. word (ydsher) for ‘straightness’ or ‘uprightness’ is translated by the NT equivalent of ‘simplicity’ (haplotls).

2. In the NT ‘simple’ (aieraios =Lat. integer) is used twice (Matthew 10:16 RVm, Romans 16:19) to describe the character in which there is ‘no foreign admixture’; the RV retains ‘simplicity’ as the rendering of haplotls only in 2 Corinthians 11:3, where it denotes those in whose character there are ‘no folds,’ who are whole-hearted in their devotion to Christ (Trench, NT Synonyms, § Ivi.). The Christian ideal is ‘simplicity toward Christ’ (2 Corinthians 11:3). In the life of His loyal disciples dove-like simplicity is blended with the wisdom of the serpent (Matthew 10:16). Their ‘eye’ being ‘single’ (haplous), their ‘whole body’ is ‘full of light’ (Matthew 6:22). Christ Jesus being made unto them ‘wisdom from God’ (1 Corinthians 1:30). they are no longer beguiled like Eve, but are ‘wise unto that which is good, and simple unto that which is evil’ (Romans 16:19). J. G. Taskek.