Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

If we are obliged to answer this question in the negative, we need not further discuss all the other points of the tradition; Peter's Romish bishopric, the succession of the popes as the heirs of this bishopric and primacy, all vanish of themselves into nothing. If we are obliged to answer it in the affirmative, then we shall pass over to the other points above mentioned.

§ 4. Course of the Investigation.

We now propose, as the basis of the examination, the tradition of Peter's arrival at Rome in A. D. 42, and his twenty-five years' bishopric there; and we inquire: "Was Peter at Rome in A. D. 42, 44, 45, and 46; was he there in A. D. 51, in 52, in 58, 60, 61, 62, 63 or 65? Could he have been there? And if we are obliged to deny this, then we conclude that he never was there. For this purpose we shall most carefully examine the "Acts of the Apostles," then pass on to those Epistles of Paul which he wrote at that time when (as claimed) Peter must have been in Rome, as the Epistle to the Romans, or which were written from Rome, as the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, to the Hebrews, to Titus, Timothy, and Philemon, and we will examine whether these Epistles contain any traces of an abode of Peter at Rome. To these authorities we shall then add the Epistles of Peter, and especially the first one, and subject them to a similar examination.

This concludes the First Part of this work, which embraces the BIBLICAL Sources. In the Second Part we shall examine the TRADITIONS of the fathers, whether they are authentic, probable, or true, and from what sources they have been derived. We shall here conclude with Origen and Cyprian, because it may be assumed as certain, that the fathers from A. D. 250 on, have only transcribed what their predecessors had transmitted to them.

[blocks in formation]

We now seek the key for an answer to the inquiry. Here naturally first comes up the question for examination : Whether Peter journeyed to Rome in A. D. 42. In looking round for a fixed point of support, we find it in Gal. 1: 17 etc., where Paul states that after his conversion he did not immediately go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles, but at first he "went into Arabia and returned to Damascus," and "then after three years," he "went to Jerusalem" to see Peter, and "abode with him fifteen days." Of this journey also Luke speaks in Acts 9: 23-30. To this event succeed several others, up to the imprisonment of Peter, which, coinciding with the death of Herod in the fourth year of the reign of Claudius, can be accurately determined.

First of all, therefore, we have to inquire when Paul was converted. This fixed, then his journey to see Peter at Jerusalem took place three years after; and as it is historically certain Peter was in Jerusalem A. D. 45, then the question at once comes up, whether it be true that Peter, from that first visit of Paul up to the second year of Claudius, was seven years bishop in Antioch, and could in that year have travelled to Rome.

§ 6. The time of Stephen's death and Paul's conversion.

Paul's conversion followed after Stephen's death. We will therefore first examine when this took place. According to Baronius, Bellarmin, Natalis, etc., it occurred shortly after the Pentecost; at the furthest it is placed eight months afterwards.

But this is not to be taken for granted. The Acts of the Apostles is the only authority from which we can here arrive at a decision. Let us see. Stephen's death is narrated in Acts vii. But how many events transpired before, which cannot be crowded into the space of eight months?

1. There are, first, the many miracles which the apostles wrought at Jerusalem (Acts 2: 43). They thus gradually so filled the neighboring regions with their fame, that "there came a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks and them which were vexed with unclean spirits, and they were healed every one" (Acts 5: 16).

2. Luke makes several pauses or interruptions in the narration, which allow us to infer a long separation of the oc

currences:

In chapter ii. he relates the descent of the Holy Spirit and the founding of the church. From verse 42 he now describes its life: " And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

In the 3d chapter Luke goes on further to sketch the growth of the church and the miracles of the apostles: "Once" (Gr. ènì rò avтó), it is stated, "Peter and John went into the temple," and now follows the healing of the lame man.

From the word used, " once" (English Tr., " now"), we might conclude that the event stood in no very near connection with the foregoing. This is yet more evident from the fact that, at the time of the healing of the lame man, Caiaphas was no longer high-priest, but Annas, before whom the Apostles were brought (Acts 3: 6). If now too we suppose that Annas succeeded Caiaphas immediately in his of fice of high-priest (a supposition which, indeed, is not necessary), then it is clear that the healing of the lame man did not take place directly after the Pentecost, but in the next year.

Luke now, with a new interruption, goes on to sketch the life or internal condition of the church. Especially he here sets forth that they who believed sold their property, and even "their houses and lands," and paid over the money to the apostles. From Acts 4: 36, we see that foreigners also, fellow-members, as for example Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, sold their more distant possessions in their own country, and paid over the money. Nothing is more certain than that a measure so vigorously carried out on a large scale, in a church of many thousands,' could not be executed in a few months; that it required years; for, to sell houses and lands, especially in distant countries, in such numbers, and to collect the money, cannot be done in a few months.

In chapter v. Luke gives the history of Ananias and Sapphira in immediate connection with the foregoing. Afterward follows a new interruption, in which the growth of the church (verse 14), the further numerous miracles of the apostles, their wide-spread fame, the streaming in of the inhabitants of the regions round about to Jerusalem, are mentioned. Then follows (verse 17 and on) the imprisonment of the apostles by the Sadducees, and their wondrous deliverance from prison.

From chapter vi. it is evident that the church was grown so large that the apostles could no more attend upon its domestic economy. Simply for the care of the widows, the seven deacons were now chosen. By nothing more than by this circumstance, is the magnitude of the church evidenced, whose growth to such an extent was certainly not the work of a few months, particularly among the stiffnecked Jews at Jerusalem.

Among the seven deacons was Stephen. Luke describes his death in chapter vii. The idea that he was put to death immediately after his consecration to office, is in the highest degree arbitrary and has everything against it. Let us see:

Luke, after his account of the choice of deacons, makes a new break (Acts 5: 7): " And the word of God increased, and

1 Acts 4: 4. After the healing of the lame man there were added at once as members 5000 men.

the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith."

This, surely, did not take place in a few weeks. Luke, with a new interruption, now passes over to Stephen. "Stephen," he states, "did great wonders and miracles among the people;" and thus excited the hatred of the Jews. This too was not, certainly, the work of a few days or weeks; indeed, a series of public addresses may have preceded it.

After this narration of events, no one can object to our assuming, that from the Pentecost to Stephen's death, some years at least must have elapsed, and that Stephen was not put to death before A. D. 35 or 36, though we may not agree with the opinion of the Alexandrian Chronicle, according to which he died in the first year of the reign of Claudius, and so in A. D. 41.

Luke

Stephen's death appears to have been the beginning of the great persecutions of the Christians by the Jews. mentions this Acts 8: 1, and yet more clearly verse 3. Now we know from Tacitus (Annals ii. 85), Suetonius (in Tib. 36), and Josephus (xviii. c. 4, 5), that the emperor Tiberius was the declared enemy of the Jews, while on the contrary, as Tertullian says, he showed a friendly feeling towards the Christians, on account of his high veneration for Christ. It cannot, therefore, properly be supposed, that he allowed the Jews not only in Jerusalem and Palestine, but also in Syria, at Damascus, so to rage as Luke describes. Hence we justly conclude that the persecution of the Christians, in which Paul was so furious, did not take place under the reign of Tiberius, and so not before A. D. 37; for it was in this year that Tiberius died. As, according to Luke's account (Acts 8: 1), Saul began his persecution of the Christians directly after Stephen's death, we also conclude that Stephen's death, at the earliest period, may have taken place at the close of A. D. 37. How long, now, was it to Paul's

1 Apol. c. 5. Tertullian says: Tiberium comminatum fuisse periculum accusatoribus Christianorum, ad annuntiata sibi ex Syria et Palestina.

« AnteriorContinuar »