THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
rechtsquellen des Patriarchate Alexandrien (Leipsic, 1900), which treats among others the Thirty Traditions of the Apostles, the Arabic Didascalia, and a version of this, the Ethiopic Didascalia — a comparatively late work which has nothing to do with the Syriac Didascalia, but is probably related to the Testamentum Jcsu Christi. An Oriental corpus, the Clementina, consists of the Testamentum, the Apostolic and Egyptian directories, an extract from the Constitutions, and the Apostolic Canons. It is divided into eight books by the Arabic and Syriac copyists. The title and introduction are taken from the Constitutions, to which the Clementina was intended as a supplement. H. Achelis.
Bibliography: Editions: The Constitutions are in Cotelerius-Clericus, Sanctorum patrum . . opera, i. 190-482, Amsterdam, 1724 (reproduced in MPG, i.); W. ttltzen, Constilutiones apostolical, Schwerin, 1853; P. de Lagarde, Constitutions apostolorum, Leipsic, 1862, and in C. C. J. Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nicama, ii., London, 1854 (the first critical ed.). The Canons are included in most council collections, in the Corpus juris civilis and Corpus juris canonici. For the Syriac consult: P. de Lagarde, Didascalia apostolorum syriace, Leipsic, 1854; M. D. Gibson, in Hora; Semiticce, i.-ii., London, 1903 (with Eng. transl., from recently discovered MSS.). From the Latin: E. Harder, Didascalia! apostolorum fragmenta Veronemia Latina, Leipsic, 1900; H. Achelis and J. Flemming, in TV, new ser., x. 2, ib. 1904, cf. H. Achelis, in TV, vi. 4, ib. 1891, and in ZKG, xv. (1894) 1 sqq. The Eng. transl. of Whiston is given with notes in ANF, vii. 391—505 (reproduced from the second volume of his Primitive Christianity). Consult also F. X. Funk, Die apostolischen Konstitutionen, Rottenburg, 1891; W. Riedel, in Romische Quartalschrift, xiv. (1900) 3 sqq.; J. Leypoldt, Saidische Auszuge aus dem achten Buche der apostolischen Konstitutionen, in TV, new ser., xi. 1, Leipsic, 1904; G. Horner, The Statutes of the Apostles; or, Can-ones ecclesiastici, ed. with Transl. from Ethiopic and Arabic MSS. . London, 1905; D. L.
O'Leary, Apostolical Constitutions, ib. 1906. The discussions upon the Didache and the Apostolical Church Directory involve the Constitutions and Canons.
APOSTOLIC COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM.
New Testament Statements and Allusions (§1).
Luke the Author of the Account in Acts (§ 2).
Occasion for the Council (§ 3).
The Outcome. Four Prohibitions (§ 4).
Alleged Contradiction between Acts and Galatians ii.
(§ 5). Later History of the Decision of the Council (§ 6).
The Apostolic Council is the common designation of the meeting described in Acts xv. It took place in 51 or 52 a.d., between the missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas and that of Paul alone, and marks a distinct stage in the proclamation of the apostles' message to the Gentile world; viz., the recognition of the right of the Gentiles i. NewTes- to a place in the Christian commutament nity, without subjection to the Mo- Statements saic law. Interest in Luke's report and Allu- of the proceedings is increased by sions. the fact that Paul himself refers to the Council in Gal. ii. 1-10 from a controversial standpoint. The comparison of the two accounts has led some recent theologians to assert that the account in Acts is essentially different from that of Paul, and that the author of Acts has made the facts fit the views which he takes of the whole period (see below, § 5). In earlier time this council was the special point used as a fulcrum for the attempt of the Tubingen school to overthrow the received
tradition as to the history and literature of the time. Although the objections of Baur, especially as to the irreconcilability of Acts xv. and Gal. ii., have few extreme representatives nowadays, yet their results are seen in recent attempts to deny the unity of the Acts, regarding the book as a composite of various sources, which do not always agree in material and in tendency.
In the following treatment of the Apostolic Council the Book of Acts is assumed to be the work of Luke of Antioch, the companion of Paul, who (xvi. 10 sqq.) narrates in the first person; and the events detailed in chap. xv. are believed to be given partly from his own knowledge, partly from the testimony of the participants. There is no a priori reason to suppose that for
2. Luke the chap, xv., or generally for any part of Author the Antiochian-Pauline period, Luke
of the was working over written authorities; Account he undoubtedly had seen the Jerusalem in Acts, letter (verses 23-29), but probably gives it here freely from memory. For a long time Paul's most trusted coadjutor, he would naturally enter intelligently into the Pauline attitude; and this is precisely what is found in his presentation of Paul's labors. His standpoint is that found in the Pauline theodicy of Rom. ix.xi., which excludes any tendency contrary to history, and allows the writer to consider historical facts in a perfectly objective manner. One may thus expect with confidence to find Luke's report of the Council historically accurate. Of this accuracy Paul's expressions must of course serve as a criterion; since, however, Paul is not, like Luke, writing from the standpoint of general history, but to enforce a special point of dispute, Luke's account must be taken as the basis of any later treatment professing to be historical.
It is learned from Luke's account that some time after Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch from their missionary journey, there appeared certain Jewish Christians who taught the hitherto unheard-of doctrine that converts from heathenism could not be saved without circumcision, thus denying the equality prevailing for some ten years (or since Acts xi. 20) between the circumcised and uncircumcised members of the Church of Antioch. This caused great disturbance among
3. Occasion the Gentile Christians, whose liberty for the was threatened, and Paul and Barna- Council. bas opposed it strongly and were
deputed to lay the question before the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. This mission implies no doubt in their minds of their own position, which had been approved all along; but they wished to be positively assured that they were in harmony with the source of their Christianity, for the quieting of their own minds and the suppression of further attacks from the Judaizing party. Luke gives with care the serious discussion which led up to the decision. The Jerusalem community at first received the tidings of Gentile conversions not with unqualified joy; some Pharisaic members of the Church put forward a definite demand that the Gentile Christians should be bound to the observance of the Mosaic law. It is to be noticed,