Lompat ke isi

Keandalan sejarah Kisah Para Rasul

Dari Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia, ensiklopedia bebas
Revisi sejak 18 April 2018 18.41 oleh JohnThorne (bicara | kontrib) (Dibuat dengan menerjemahkan halaman "Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles")
(beda) ← Revisi sebelumnya | Revisi terkini (beda) | Revisi selanjutnya → (beda)

Keandalan sejarah Kisah Para Rasul,  sumber sejarah utama untuk Zaman Para Rasul, menarik minat para sarjana alkitab dan sejarawan Kristen Awal sebagai bagian dari perdebatan keandalan sejarah Alkitab.

Prasasti arkeologi dan sumber-sumber independen menunjukkan bahwa Kisah Para Rasul memuat rincian yang akurat mengenai masyarakat pada abad ke-1 di Timur Dekat dan Eropa, khususnya berkaitan dengan gelar para pejabat, pembagian administratif, kota, majelis, dan aturan-aturan Bait Suci Yahudi di Yerusalem.

Kunci perdebatan adalah keandalan sejarah penggambaran Paulus dalam Kisah Para Rasul. Menurut Encyclopædia Britannica, Paulus dalam Kisah Para Rasul menjelaskan dengan secara berbeda dari cara Paulus menggambarkan dirinya, baik secara faktual maupun secara teologis.[1] Kisah Para Rasul nampaknya berbeda dengan surat-surat Paulus pada isu-isu penting, seperti Hukum Taurat, kerasulan Paulus sendiri, dan hubungannya dengan gereja Yerusalem.[2] Para sarjana umumnya lebih memilih keterangan Paulus sendiri (dalam surat-suratnya) daripada keterangan Kisah Para Rasul.[3] Namun, beberapa tokoh sarjana dan sejarawan melihat kitab Kisah Para Rasul sebagai sumber yang cukup akurat dan dikuatkan oleh arkeologi, dan secara umum sesuai dengan surat-surat Paulus.[4]

Komposisi

Narasi

Injil Lukas–Kisah Para Rasul adalah catatan sejarah dalam dua bagian yang secara tradisional dianggap adalah karya Lukas yang diyakini merupakan pengikut Paulus. Penulis Injil Lukas-Kisah Para Rasul ini mencatat bahwa ada banyak catatan dalam sirkulasi pada saat ia menulis, yang katanya adalah keterangan para saksi mata. Ia menyatakan bahwa ia telah menyelidiki "segala sesuatu dari awal" dan menyunting bahan-bahan itu ke dalam satu catatan mulai dari kelahiran Yesus ke waktunya sendiri. Seperti sejarawan lain pada masanya,[5][6][7][8] ia mendefinisikan tindakannya dengan menyatakan bahwa pembaca dapat bergantung pada "kepastian" fakta-fakta yang diberikan. Namun, sebagian sarjana modern melihat Injil Lukas-Kisah Para Rasul berada dalam tradisi historiografi yunani.[9][10][11]

Penggunaan sumber-sumber

Telah diklaim bahwa penulis Kisah Para Rasul menggunakan tulisan-tulisan Yosefus (khususnya "Antiquities of the Jews"), sebagai sumber sejarah.[12][13] Sebagian sarjana menolak klaim ini maupun klaim bahwa Yosefus yang meminjam dari Kisah Para Rasul,[14][15][16] sebaliknya berpendapat bahwa Lukas dan Yosefus sama-sama mengambil dari tradisi dan sumber-sumber sejarah umum saat itu.[17][18][19][20][21][22]


Historisitas

Debat mengenai historisitas (keandalan sejarah) Kisah Para Rasul menjadi hebat antara tahun 1895 dan 1915.[23] Sejumlah sarjana Jerman sangat kritikal terhadap akurasi kitab itu, tetapi kritik ini kemudian dinyatakan "hiperkritisisme yang berlebihan".[24] Sikap terhadap keakurasian sejarah Kisah Para Rasul berbeda jauh dalam pandangan para sarjana negara-negara yang berbeda.[25]

Bagian-bagian yang dibuktikan konsisten dengan sejarah

Kisah Para Rasul  memuat rincian yang akurat mengenai masyarakat pada abad ke-1 di Timur Dekat dan Eropa, khususnya berkaitan dengan gelar para pejabat, pembagian administratif, kota, majelis, dan aturan-aturan Bait Suci Yahudi di Yerusalem,[26] termasuk:

  • Prasasti-prasasi memastikan bahwa pemerintah kota Tesalonika pada abad ke-1 disebut "politarch" ([[{{{buku}}}|{{{buku}}}]] Acts:17:6–8-KJV)
  • Prasasti-prasasti memastikan bahwa grammateus adalah gelar yang benar untuk ketua magistrat di Ephesus ([[{{{buku}}}|{{{buku}}}]] Acts:19:35-KJV)
  • Felix dan Festus secara tepat disebut dengan gelar jabata prokurator Judea
  • Catatan kecil mengenai pengusiran orang-orang Yahudi dari Roma oleh Kaisar Claudius secara independen dipastikan oleh Suetonius dalam Claudius 25 dari "The Twelve Caesars" ([[{{{buku}}}|{{{buku}}}]] Acts:18:2-KJV)
  • Kornelius secara tepat disebut bergelar jabatan sebagai kenturion sementara Claudius Lysias adalah seorang "tribune" ([[{{{buku}}}|{{{buku}}}]] Acts:21:31-KJV dan [[{{{buku}}}|{{{buku}}}]] Acts:23:36-KJV)
  • Gelar jabatan proconsul (anthypathos) secara tepat digunakan untuk para gubernur dari dua provinsi senatorial yang disebutkan dalam kitab ini ([[{{{buku}}}|{{{buku}}}]] Acts:13:7–8-KJV and [[{{{buku}}}|{{{buku}}}]] Acts:18:12-KJV)
  • Prasasti-prasasti menyebutkan larangan bagi orang asing (non-Yahudi) untuk memasuki wilayah bagian dalam Bait Suci ([[{{{buku}}}|{{{buku}}}]] Acts:21:27–36-KJV); juga lihat Court of the Gentiles
  • Fungsi majelis kota dalam bisnis kota digambarkan secara tepat dalam  [[{{{buku}}}|{{{buku}}}]] Acts:19:29–41-KJV
  • Tentara Romawi secara permanen ditempatkan di Menara Antonia dengan tanggung jawab untuk mengawasi dan menekan setiap kerusuhan pada hari-hari raya Yahudi; untuk mencapai daerah yang rusuh mereka menuruni tangga khusus untuk masuk ke daerah Bait Suci seperti ditulis dalam  [[{{{buku}}}|{{{buku}}}]] Acts:21:31–37-KJV

Talbot menyimpulkan bahwa ketidakakuratan sejarah dalam Kisah Para Rasul "sangat sedikit dan tidak signifikan dibandingkan dengan keakuratan yang berlimpah antaran Kisah Para Rasul dengan zamannya [sampai 64 M] dan tempat [Palestina dan wilayah luas Kekaisaran Romawi]".[27] 

Meskipun memandang dengan skeptis, sarjana kritikal seperti Gerd Lüdemann, Alexander Wedderburn, Hans Conzelmann, dan Martin Hengel masih melihat Kisah Para Rasul memuat catatan sejarah akurat yang berharga mengenai kehidupan orang Kristen mula-mula.

Lüdemann mengakui historitas kemunculan Kristus setelah kebangkitan,[28] nama-nama para murid pertama,[29] para murid perempuan,[30] dan Yudas Iskariot.[31] Wedderburn mengatakan bahwa para murid percaya tanpa keraguan bahwa Kristus benar-benar bangkit dari kematian.[32] Conzelmann menggugurkan dugaan kontradiksi antara  [[{{{buku}}}|{{{buku}}}]] Acts:13:31-KJV dan [[{{{buku}}}|{{{buku}}}]] Acts:1:3-KJV.[33] Hengel percaya bahwa Kisah Para Rasul ditulis awal sekali[34] oleh Lukas sebagai saksi mata sebagian,[35] memuji pengetahuan Lukas mengenai Palestina,[36] dan mengenai kebiasaan Yahudi dalam Kisah Para Rasul 1:12.[37]

Perihal [[{{{buku}}}|{{{buku}}}]] Acts:1:15–26-KJV, Lüdemann skeptis terhadap pemilihan Matias, tetapi bukan mengenai keberadaan sejarahnya.[38] Wedderburn menolak teori yang menyangkal historisitas para murid,[39][40] Conzelmann menganggap pertemuan di ruang atas merupakan peristiwa sejarah yang diketahui oleh Lukas dari tradisi,[41] dan Hengel menganggap ‘Tanah Darah’ merupakan nama sejarah yang otentik.[42]

Perihal Kisah Para Rasul 2, Lüdemann menganggap perkumpulan pada hari Pentakosta sangat mungkin terjadi,[43] dan pengajaran para rasul dapat dipercaya dari sisi sejarah.[44] Wedderburn mengakui kemungkinan adanya ‘pengalaman ekstatik massal’,[45] dan mencatat sultinya menjelaskan mengapa orang-orang Kristen mula-mula mengadopsi hari raya Yahudi ini jika tidak ada peristiwa Pentakosta asli yang terjadi seperti dicatat dalam Kisah Para Rasul.[46] Ia juga memegang keyakinan bahwa penggambaran komunitas awal dalam Kisah Para Rasul 2 dapat diandalkan.[47][48]

Lüdemann memandang Kisah 3:1–31 sebagai catatan sejarah.[49] Wedderburn menyatakannya sebagai ciri penggambaran yang diidealkan,[50] tetapi tidak setuju untuk menyebut catatan itu bukan sejarah.[51] Hengel juga yakin Lukas menuliskan peristiwa sejarah sesungguhnya, meskipun mungkin membuat lebih ideal.[52][53]



Lihat pula

  • Historical method
  • Historical reliability of the Gospels
  • Luke-Acts
  • Authorship of Luke-Acts

Referensi

  1. ^ "Acts presents a picture of Paul that differs from his own description of himself in many of his letters, both factually and theologically." biblical literature (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved November 25, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: [1].
  2. ^ "That an actual companion of Paul writing about his mission journeys could be in so much disagreement with Paul (whose theology is evidenced in his letters) about fundamental issues such as the Law, his apostleship, and his relationship to the Jerusalem church is hardly conceivable." biblical literature (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved November 25, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: [2].
  3. ^ "Paul's own account is generally regarded as the more reliable." Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 316.
  4. ^ Bruce, F.F. (1981). "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" Ch. 7–8. InterVarsity Press.
  5. ^ Aune, David (1988). The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. James Clarke & Co. hlm. 77–. ISBN 978-0-227-67910-4. 
  6. ^ Daniel Marguerat (5 September 2002). The First Christian Historian: Writing the 'Acts of the Apostles'. Cambridge University Press. hlm. 63–. ISBN 978-1-139-43630-4. 
  7. ^ Clare K. Rothschild (2004). Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography. Mohr Siebeck. hlm. 216–. ISBN 978-3-16-148203-8. 
  8. ^ Todd Penner (18 June 2004). In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography. Bloomsbury Academic. hlm. 45–. ISBN 978-0-567-02620-0. 
  9. ^ Grant, Robert M., "A Historical Introduction to the New Testament" (Harper and Row, 1963) "Archived copy". Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2010-06-21. Diakses tanggal 2009-11-24. 
  10. ^ Phillips, Thomas E. "The Genre of Acts: Moving Toward a Consensus?" Currents in Biblical Research 4 [2006] 365 – 396.
  11. ^ "Hengel classifies Acts as a "historical monograph," as accurate as the work of any other ancient historian. Cadbury thinks the author is closest to being a historian, but writes on a popular level. Others[siapa?] compare the author to the ancient historian Thucydides, particularly in the matter of composed speeches that strive for verisimilitude. L. Donelson characterizes the author as a cult historian who travels from place to place gathering traditions, setting down the origin of the sect. Pervo observes that even scholars such as Haenchen who rate the author as highly unreliable nevertheless classify him as a historian.", Setzer, "Jewish responses to early Christians: history and polemics, 30–150 C.E." (1994). Fortress Press.
  12. ^ ‘This theory was maintained by F. C. Burkitt (The Gospel History and its Transmission, 1911, pp. 105–110), following the arguments of Krenkel’s Josephus und Lucas (1894).’, Guthrie, ‘New Testament Introduction’, p. 363 (4th rev. ed. 1996). Tyndale Press.
  13. ^ 'Clearly Luke makes significant use of the LXX in both the gospels and Acts. In addition it is often alleged that he made use of the writings of Josephus and the letters of Paul. The use of the LXX is not debatable, but the influence of Josephus and Paul has been and is subjected to considerable debate.', Tyson, 'Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle', p. 14 (2006).University of California Press.
  14. ^ ‘Neither position has much of a following today, because of the significant differences between the two works in their accounts of the same events.’, Mason, ‘Josephus and the New Testament’, p. 185 (1992). Baker Publishing Group.
  15. ^ 'After examining the texts myself, I must conclude with the majority of scholars that it is impossible to establish the dependence of Luke-Acts on the Antiquitates.', Sterling, 'Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography', Supplements to Novum Testamentum, pp. 365–366 (1992). Brill.
  16. ^ 'Most scholars today deny any dependence one way or the other, and we think this judgment is correct.', Heyler, 'Exploring Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students', p. 362 (2002). InterVarsity Press.
  17. ^ 'Sterling concludes that, while it is impossible to establish a literary dependence of Luke-Acts on the writings of Josephus, it is reasonable to affirm that both authors not only had access to similar historical traditions but also shared the same historiographical techniques and perspectives.', Verheyden, 'The Unity of Luke-Acts', p. 678 (1990). Peeters Publishing.
  18. ^ 'It seems probable that Luke and Josephus wrote independently of one another; for each could certainly have had access to sources and information, which he then employed according to his own perspectives. A characteristic conglomerate of details, which in part agree, in part reflect great similarity, but also in part, appear dissimilar and to stem from different provenances, accords with this analysis.', Schreckenberg & Schubert, 'Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christian Literature', Compendia Rerum Iudicarum Ad Novum Testamentum, volume 2, p. 51 (1992). Uitgeverij Van Gorcum.
  19. ^ 'The relationship between Luke and Josephus has produced an abundant literature, which has attempted to show the literary dependence of one on the other. I do not believe that any such dependence can be proved.', Marguerat, 'The First Christian Historian: writing the "Acts of the Apostles"', p. 79 (2002). Cambridge University Press.
  20. ^ 'Arguments for the dependence of passages in Acts on Josephus (especially the reference to Theudas in Acts v. 37) are equally unconvincing. The fact is, as Schurer has said: "Either Luke had not read Josephus, or he had forgotten all about what he had read"', Geldenhuys, 'Commentary on the Gospel of Luke', p. 31 (1950).Tyndale Press.
  21. ^ 'After examining the texts myself, I must conclude with the majority of scholars that it is impossible to establish the dependence of Luke-Acts on the Antiquitates. What is clear is that Luke-Acts and Josephus shared some common traditions about the recent history of Palestine.', Sterling, 'Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography', Supplements to Novum Testamentum, pp. 365–366 (1992). Brill.
  22. ^ 'When we consider both the differences and the agreement in many details of the information in the two accounts, [of the death of Herod Agrippa I] it is surely better to suppose the existence of a common source on which Luke and Josephus independently drew.', Klauck & McNeil, 'Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: the world of the Acts of the Apostles', p. 43 (2003). Continuum International Publishing Group.
  23. ^ "In the period approximately 1895–1915 there was a far reaching, multi-facted, high-level debate over the historicity of Acts.", Hemer & Gempf, "The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History", p.3 (1990). Mohr Siebeck.
  24. ^ "It is difficult to acquit Harnack here of an exaggerated hypercriticism. He constructed a lengthy list of inaccuracies(Harnack, Acts pp. 203–31), but most of the entries are bizarrely trivial:", Hemer & Gempf, "The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History", p. 7 (1990). Mohr Siebeck.
  25. ^ "British scholarship has been relatively positive about Acts' historicity, from Lightfoot and Ramsay to W.L. Knox and Bruce. German scholarship has, for the most part, evaluated negatively the historical worth of Acts, from Baur and his school to Dibelius, Conzelmann, and Haenchen. North American scholars show a range of opinion. Mattill and Gasque align with the British approach to Acts. Cadbury and Lake take a moderate line and to some degree sidestep the question of accurate historicity.", Setzer, "Jewish responses to early Christians: history and polemics, 30–150 C.E.", p. 94 (1994). Fortress Press.
  26. ^ Talbert, "Reading Luke-Acts in its Mediterranean Milieu", pp. 198–200 (2003). Brill.
  27. ^ Talbert, "Reading Luke-Acts in its Mediterranean Milieu", pp. 198–200 (2003). Brill.
  28. ^ ‘"There were in fact appearances of the heavenly Jesus in Jerusalem (after those in Galilee)" (ibid., 29–30)”’, Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, p. 164 (2004); he attributes the appearances to hallucination.
  29. ^ ‘"The names of the disciples of Jesus are for the most part certainly historical[”].’, Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, p. 164 (2004)
  30. ^ ‘[“]The existence of women disciples as members of the earliest Jerusalem community is also a historical fact" (ibid., 31).’, Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, p. 164 (2004)
  31. ^ ‘"The disciple Iscariot is without doubt a historical person... [who] made a decisive contribution to delivering Jesus into the hands of the Jewish authorities" (ibid., 35–36).’, Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, p. 165 (2004)
  32. ^ ‘Whatever one believes about the resurrection of Jesus,5 it is undeniable that his followers came to believe that he had been raised by God from the dead, that the one who had apparently died an ignominious death, forsaken and even accursed by his God, had subsequently been vindicated by that same God., ’ Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 17 (2004).
  33. ^ ‘According to this verse Jesus seems to appear only to the apostles (for Luke, the Twelve), while the parallel in 13:31* says he appeared to all who went with him on the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. The contradiction is not a serious one, however, nor is there any real difference between the forty days mentioned in this text and the ἡμέρας πλείους, “many days,” of 13:31*.’, Conzelmann, Limber (trans.), Epp, & Matthews (eds.), ‘Acts of the Apostles: A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles’, Hermeneia, p. 5 (1987).
  34. ^ 'That makes it all the more striking that Acts says nothing of Paul the letter-writer. In my view this presupposes a relatively early date for Acts, when there was still a vivid memory of Paul the missionary, but the letter-writer was not known in the same way.', Hengel & Schwemer, 'Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: the unknown years', p. 3 (1997).
  35. ^ 'Contrary to a widespread anti-Lukan scholasticism which is often relatively ignorant of ancient historiography, I regard Acts as a work that was composed soon after the Third Gospel by Luke 'the beloved physician' (Col. 4:14), who accompanied Paul on his travels from the journey with the collection to Jerusalem onwards. In other words, as at least in part an eye-witness account for the late period of the apostle, about which we no longer have any information from the letters, it is a first-hand source.', Hengel & Schwemer, 'Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: the unknown years', p. 7 (1997).
  36. ^ ‘So Luke-Acts looks back on the destruction of Jerusalem, which is still relatively recent, and moreover is admirably well informed about Jewish circumstances in Palestine, in this respect comparable only to its contemporary Josephus. As Matthew and John attest, that was no longer the case around 15–25 years later; one need only compare the historical errors of the former Platonic philosopher Justin from Neapolis in Samaria, who was born around 100 CE.’, Hengel & Schwemer, 'Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: the unknown years', pp. 7–8 (1997).
  37. ^ ‘The term 'a sabbath day's journey', which appears only here in the New Testament, presupposes an amazingly intimate knowledge — for a Greek — of Jewish customs.’, Hengel, ‘Between Jesus and Paul: studies in the earliest history of Christianity’, p. 107 (1983).
  38. ^ ‘"One is... inclined to challenge the historicity of the election of Matthias... This does not mean, though, that the Jerusalem Christians Matthias and Joseph were not historical figures" (ibid., 37).’, Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, p. 166 (2004)
  39. ^ ‘Yet is such a theory not an act of desperation?21 Is it not in every way simpler to accept that the Twelve existed during Jesus’ lifetime and that Judas was one of them?’, Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 22 (2004).
  40. ^ ‘The presence of some names in the list is, in view of their relative obscurity, most easily explained by their having indeed been members of this group.’, Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 22 (2004).
  41. ^ ‘A local tradition about the meeting place can still be detected. The upper room is the place for prayer and conversation (20:8*; cf. Dan 6:11*), and for seclusion (Mart. Pol. 7.1). The list of names agrees with Luke 6:13–16*.’, Conzelmann, Limber (trans.), Epp, & Matthews (eds.), ‘Acts of the Apostles: A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles’, Hermeneia, pp. 8–9 (1987); he nevertheless believes the waiting for the spirit is a fiction by Luke.
  42. ^ 'The Aramaic designation Akeldamakc for 'field of blood' has been correctly handed down in Acts 1:19; this is a place name which is also known by Matthew 27:8', Hengel, ‘The Geography of Palestine in Acts’, in Bauckham (ed.), ‘The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting’, p. 47 (1995).
  43. ^ ‘Although doubting that the specification "Pentecost" belongs to the tradition, Lüdemann supposes, on the basis of references to glossolalia in Paul's letters and the ecstatic prophecy of Philip's daughters (Acts 21:9), that "we may certainly regard a happening of the kind described by the tradition behind vv.1–4 as very possible."’, Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, p. 166 (2004)
  44. ^ ‘"The instruction by the apostles is also to be accepted as historical, since in the early period of the Jerusalem community the apostles had a leading role. So Paul can speak of those who were apostles before him (in Jerusalem!, Gal. 1.17)" (40.)’, Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, p. 166 (2004).
  45. ^ ‘It is also possible that at some point of time, though not necessarily on this day, some mass ecstatic experience took place.’, Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 26 (2004).
  46. ^ ‘At any rate, as Weiser and Jervell point out,39 it needs to be explained why early Christians adopted Pentecost as one of their festivals, assuming that the Acts account was not reason enough.’, Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 27 (2004).
  47. ^ ‘Many features of them are too intrinsically probable to be lightly dismissed as the invention of the author. It is, for instance, highly probable that the earliest community was taught by the apostles (2:42)—at least by them among others.’, Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 30 (2004).
  48. ^ ‘Again, if communal meals had played an important part in Jesus’ ministry and had indeed served then as a demonstration of the inclusive nature of God’s kingly rule, then it is only to be expected that such meals would continue to form a prominent part of the life of his followers (Acts 2:42, 46), even if they and their symbolic and theological importance were a theme particularly dear to ‘Luke’s’ heart.47 It is equally probable that such meals took place, indeed had to take place, in private houses or in a private house (2:46) and that this community was therefore dependent, as the Pauline churches would be at a later stage, upon the generosity of at least one member or sympathizer who had a house in Jerusalem which could be placed at the disposal of the group. At the same time it might seem unnecessary to deny another feature of the account in Acts, namely that the first followers of Jesus also attended the worship of the Temple (2:46; 3:1; 5:21, 25, 42), even if they also used the opportunity of their visits to the shrine to spread their message among their fellow-worshippers. For without question they would have felt themselves to be still part of Israel.’, Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 30 (2004).
  49. ^ "Despite what is in other respects the negative result of the historical analysis of the tradition in Acts 3–4:31, the question remains whether Luke's general knowledge of this period of the earliest community is of historical value. We should probably answer this in the affirmative, because his description of the conflict between the earliest community and the priestly nobility rests on correct historical assumptions. For the missionary activity of the earliest community in Jerusalem not long after the crucifixion of Jesus may have alarmed Sadducean circles... so that they might at least have prompted considerations about action against the Jesus community.", Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, pp. 168–169 (2004).
  50. ^ ‘The presence of such idealizing features does not mean, however, that these accounts are worthless or offer no information about the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem.46 Many features of them are too intrinsically probable to be lightly dismissed as the invention of the author.’, Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 30 (2004).
  51. ^ ‘At the same time it might seem unnecessary to deny another feature of the account in Acts, namely that the first followers of Jesus also attended the worship of the Temple (2:46; 3:1; 5:21, 25, 42), even if they also used the opportunity of their visits to the shrine to spread their message among their fellow-worshippers. For without question they would have felt themselves to be still part of Israel.48 The earliest community was entirely a Jewish one; even if Acts 2:5 reflects an earlier tradition which spoke of an ethnically mixed audience at Pentecost,49 it is clear that for the author of Acts only Jewish hearers come in question at this stage and on this point he was in all probability correct.’, Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 30 (2004).
  52. ^ ‘There is a historical occasion behind the description of the story of Pentecost in Acts and Peter's preaching, even if Luke has depicted them with relative freedom.’, Hengel & Schwemer, 'Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: the unknown years', p. 28 (1997).
  53. ^ ‘Luke's ideal, stained-glass depiction in Acts 2–5 thus has a very real background, in which events followed one another rapidly and certainly were much more turbulent than Acts portrays them.’, Hengel & Schwemer, 'Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: the unknown years', p. 29 (1997).

Pustaka tambahan

  • I. Howard Marshall. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press 1970.
  • F.F. Bruce. The Speeches in the Acts of the Apostles. London: The Tyndale Press, 1942.
  • Helmut Koester. Ancient Christian Gospels. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999.
  • Colin J. Hemer. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989.
  • J. Wenham, "The Identification of Luke", Evangelical Quarterly 63 (1991), 3–44

Pranala luar

Diperoleh dari "https://wiki-indonesia.club/w/index.php?title=Keandalan_sejarah_Kisah_Para_Rasul&oldid=13843226"