1907
DOI: 10.1086/478703
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Acts versus Galatians: The Crux of Apostolic History

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1908
1908
1908
1908

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Its law is not that of "whole burntoffering and sacrifice," but the love of God and man (12 28-34). 57 But we are not endeavoring to prove the Paulinism of Mark, which is amply sustained by the critics to whom Holtzmann directs Schweitzer's attention; 58 we are merely pointing to the beginnings of a historico-critical school which finds the key to the formulation of gospel material in the aetiological motive. And the first result of its application is to find that the great epistles to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians lay bare to us the institutions, the problems, the live issues which the groups of anecdotes in Mark are adapted to explain, determine, and justify.…”
Section: Yale Universitymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Its law is not that of "whole burntoffering and sacrifice," but the love of God and man (12 28-34). 57 But we are not endeavoring to prove the Paulinism of Mark, which is amply sustained by the critics to whom Holtzmann directs Schweitzer's attention; 58 we are merely pointing to the beginnings of a historico-critical school which finds the key to the formulation of gospel material in the aetiological motive. And the first result of its application is to find that the great epistles to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians lay bare to us the institutions, the problems, the live issues which the groups of anecdotes in Mark are adapted to explain, determine, and justify.…”
Section: Yale Universitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In nearly every case of Pauline radicalism in Mark it will be found that Luke omits the passage, while Matthew inverts its sense by verbal changes. 58 See the authorities cited in Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft, X, pp. 38-40.…”
Section: Yale Universitymentioning
confidence: 99%