Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:33:34.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem of Christian Origins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

Kirsopp Lake
Kirsopp Lake
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Johannes Weiss, Das Urchristentum, Göttingen, 1917.

Alfred Loisy, Les Actes des Apôtres, Paris, 1920.

F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, Volume I, London, 1920.

Eduard Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, Stuttgart and Berlin, 1921.

Roland Schütz, Apostel und Jünger, eine quellenkritische und geschichtliche Untersuchung über die Entstehung des Christentums, Giessen, 1921.

B. H. Streeter, ‘Fresh Light on the Synoptic Problem,’ Hibbert Journal, October, 1921.

The purpose of this article is not so much to offer a review of the books mentioned above as to indicate briefly their nature and contents, and to discuss the varied yet similar points of view which they represent toward some of the problems in the story of Christian origins as studied today.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 1922 , pp. 97 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1922

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Something of Dr. Sanday's later state of mind may be learned from his book, published in 1920, entitled ‘Divine Overruling.’

2 He states in the Modern Churchman that I represent Jesus as a man of secondrate importance who allowed his disciples to call him ‘Sir.’ It is of course easy to refute this representation. But it is not mine.

3 This would be denied by some critics, but I think that Wellhausen certainly has the better of Harnack on this point. In any case, even if it be not so, the influence of Q on Mark was small. Here too the suggestions of Wellhausen and Eduard Meyer as to the sources of Mark deserve further attention.