Peter and Paul in Acts: A Comparison of Their Ministries. David Spell
Читать онлайн книгу.
9:26-30) There is no specific mention of any of the other apostle’s names, however, Hemer makes a strong case that this passage in Acts is a parallel to what Paul said in Galatians 1:18-19 where he said he spent fifteen days with Cephas. “Luke says Paul had apostolic contact: Paul tells us whom he saw,” The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 249.
6 Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1967) lv. See also, Williams, 14, “Luke quite deliberately draws a series of parallels, between Peter in the first half of the book and Paul in the second . . .”
7 Robert H. Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970) 219. See also Gerhard Krodel, Peter in the New Testament, ed. Raymond E. Brown, (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973) 40, “It has often been observed that Peter dominates the story of the spread of Christianity narrated in the first half of Acts (he is not mentioned after Acts 15), while Paul dominates the story in the second half.”
8 Paul is shown in Acts routinely starting in the synagogue of the cities that he is attempting to reach and Acts closes with Paul reasoning with a group of Roman Jews in 28:23-29.
9 Acts 10. “Peter supports the gentile mission, but it is largely carried out through Paul and his companions, according to Acts.” See Robert C. Tannehill, “The Functions of Peter’s Mission Speeches in the Narrative of Acts,” New Testament Studies 37 (1991) 412.
1 / The Book of Acts in Critical Perspective
Critical Issues Associated With Acts
Because Acts is going to be the foundation for this study, it is important that some of the historical/critical issues that are associated with the book be discussed. This material may be more appropriate for the scholar as opposed to the average lay person. However, it is important for the lay reader to understand those areas in which Acts has been attacked and how it has withstood these attacks. An understanding of the critical issues associated with Acts will carry over into the rest of the New Testament as well.
Acts is the only book in the New Testament that is devoted to the history of the early church and its value as a source for early church history continues to generate discussion and debate among scholars.10 This debate does not diminish the importance of the book for New Testament study. Foakes-Jackson acknowledges the importance of Acts when he says, “Without it, had we even the rest of the New Testament, the origin of the Christian church would be a subject for ingenious conjecture.”11
The first group of scholars that will be discussed are those who consider Acts as having little, if any, historical significance. These are generally regarded as being liberal in their view of the Scriptures. F. C. Baur and the “Tübingen School” are examples of this type of thought.12 While Baur himself never completely rejected all of Acts, believing that some of the material may have been inspired by genuine traditions, he laid the groundwork for his followers, Albert Schwegler and Eduard Zeller, who did.13 They dated Acts in the 110–150 AD period and according to Hemer, “there is no room in these writers for any connection with authentic traditions deriving from a companion of Paul.”14 Baur and his followers attempted to apply Hegelian philosophy to Christian history in order to understand how the early church developed. In so doing, the Tübingen School became “a historical-critical approach to the Bible that completely ignored the divine element in it.”15
One of the main ideas that Baur and his followers subscribed to was that Acts was written in an effort to reconcile Petrine and Pauline theology. It was believed that there had been a split between Peter and Paul while they were living and that Acts was written in an effort to heal this rift between their followers.16 Baur based this on 1 Corinthians 1:12, where Paul described one of the problems in the Corinthian church. Some were aligning themselves with Christ, others with Cephas, others with Apollos, and still others with Paul.17 It will be demonstrated in chapter 2 that the New Testament does not give any concrete evidence of a long-term conflict between Peter and Paul, nor does it provide the basis for the “two churches” or “two missions” that some scholars describe.
While Baur and his followers lived about 150 years ago, their influence is still felt in some circles today.18 There are contemporary scholars who do not accept Acts as an accurate account of early church history and seem to have been influenced by Baur and his followers. One modern scholar who exemplifies this is Gerhard Krodel. In one of his commentaries on Acts, he states that Acts is neither chronological, nor historically accurate, and is what he refers to as an example of “biblical history which proclaims the mighty acts of God.”19 By relegating it to “biblical history,” it does not matter to Krodel if Acts is accurate historically or not.20 Krodel also seems to accept Baur’s premise that Luke wrote to heal rifts between the followers of Peter and Paul.21
A Pauline scholar who acknowledges the value of the Tübingen School is Samuel Sandmel. He believes that Baur and his students were “on the threshold of the correct solution,” in how to treat Acts.22 While agreeing with most of the their conclusions regarding Acts, Sandmel thinks that the Tübingen scholars’ biggest mistake was in their attempt to force their findings into a Hegelian framework.23
Unlike many Pauline scholars who only focus on Pauline traditions, Sandmel also discusses Petrine tradition in Acts. He believes that the only valid Petrine tradition in the New Testament is that which Paul wrote in Corinthians and Galatians.24 As a scholar who holds to the Tübingen ideals, Sandmel believes that Luke’s Peter is created as “the hammer with which one blunts the sharp edge of Pauline doctrine.”25
J. Christiaan Beker is another modern scholar who appears to have been influenced by the Tübingen School. He says that Acts is composed of “a mixture of oral reports, memories, and legends . . .”26 Beker believes that Luke’s Paul is presented in a way that shows continuity with the original apostles and he is shown working hard to maintain a harmonious relationship with them.27 In Beker’s view, the Paul we see in Acts is a product of Luke’s creativity.28
Another contemporary scholar who holds to the Tübingen idea that Acts was written to reconcile Peter and Paul is Michael Goulder. He says, “Acts is in fact a doubtful asset, for it was Luke who invented the united virginal church theory, and Acts is his steady attempt to paper over all the cracks.”29 Goulder goes to great lengths in his book to establish the fact that the two