Landmarks in the History of Early ChristianityLake, Kirsopp
History
Landmarks in the History of Early Christianity
Lake, Kirsopp
Church history -- Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600
The two traditions are naturally quite contradictory; but human nature
is so constituted that it is not impossible for two sets of people,
especially after {66} some lapse of time, to give entirely different
accounts of the same events and to do so in perfectly good faith. The
editor of Acts, however, did not realise that the two traditions
referred to the same event, and made a mistake in thinking that the
meeting which he found described in the Jerusalem source came after and
not before the first missionary journey. Ed. Schwartz goes further.
He points out that the first missionary journey follows the account of
the meeting in Jerusalem given in Acts xi., and that the second journey
follows the account given in Acts xv. If there was really only one
meeting, was there not really only one journey, which the editor of
Acts, or his sources, converted into two?
However this may be, and no agreement among critics is ever likely to
be reached, it is at least certain that there was considerable friction
between Jerusalem and Antioch, and that Antioch wholly refused to
accept the dictation of Jerusalem. On the contrary, it undertook
wide-reaching missions, of one of which Paul became the leader,
founding churches in Galatia, Asia, and Achaea. Of his career we have
an obviously good account, so far as the sequence of events is
concerned, in the second part of Acts, and some interesting sidelights
on its difficulties and trials in the Pauline epistles.
What were the main characteristics of the preaching to the Gentiles
which thus found a centre in Antioch? Its basis was the intellectual
heritage from Jerusalem which made the Christians teach that {67} the
God of the Jews was the only true God, and that Jesus had been
appointed by him as the Man who would judge the world at the end of the
age. This represents the teaching in Marcan tradition as to the Son of
Man, but Paul also accepted the view that Jesus was the Son of David,
though he seems to have eliminated the purely national character of the
expected restoration of the kingdom of the Jews under a Davidic king.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account