This book may be viewed as an interpretation of primary and secondary writings (data) relating to early Christian worship in the first four centuries. The author provides a study of early Christian worship that extends from the practices of the earliest Christian communities and he shows the consequences that they have on our discernment of different aspects of early Christian worship.
In the preface, the author uses the groupings of comparable linguistics which separates between “lumpers” (scholars that group different languages into families) and “splitters” (scholars that having viewed the resulting lumps, find fault with them). His work in this book clearly represents the splitters’ approach (page ix).
Bradshaw summarises his idea using …show more content…
He suggests that what is known about the early church in the first 3 centuries shows considerable diversity and not uniformity as original thought. He argues that different regions such as Egypt, Syria, Rome, and North Africa may have practiced a variety of traditions and also that different traditions may have co-existed alongside each other in the same region and also at a particular time. (p 229).
Bradshaw suggests that the “classical shape of Christian liturgy” that has been described by scholars to be practiced in the early church was actually the result of a deliberate amalgamation of the different Christian traditions during the fourth century with Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity and was not the survival of a pattern of Christian worship from the time of Jesus and the apostles (p 211).
In Chapter Seven, Bradshaw admits that there are evidences for some common features that transcend the diversity of local practices but he also points out that these features do not always share the same meaning. He therefore concludes that “there are too many variations in structure and theology to allow us to construct a single picture in anything but the very broadest terms” (p 170). …show more content…
Here, he cautions against overemphasising the contrast between Pre and Post-Nicene worship and points out that the influx of new members resulted in some constitutional changes, He suggests that the influences of new disciples (formerly pagan people) led to changes in the understanding, application and format of the main rituals (p 229). He refers to this evolution as “seeds of further liturgical destruction” (p 219) and deduces evidence of a “tendency towards disintegration instead of the full flowering of the Christian vision” (p 213).
Chapter Ten shows Bradshaw's scholarly scepticism betraying him because he speaks of “the Christian vision” after extensive work on his part to emphasise the diversity of Christian liturgical practices and theologies, a theory that he oftentimes exposes in other scholars. Moreover, from Bradshaw’s admission in the preface of being a splitter, it could be suggested that he is perhaps being pessimistic and far more knowledge is known by scholars than he maintains. (p
In the preface, the author uses the groupings of comparable linguistics which separates between “lumpers” (scholars that group different languages into families) and “splitters” (scholars that having viewed the resulting lumps, find fault with them). His work in this book clearly represents the splitters’ approach (page ix).
Bradshaw summarises his idea using …show more content…
He suggests that what is known about the early church in the first 3 centuries shows considerable diversity and not uniformity as original thought. He argues that different regions such as Egypt, Syria, Rome, and North Africa may have practiced a variety of traditions and also that different traditions may have co-existed alongside each other in the same region and also at a particular time. (p 229).
Bradshaw suggests that the “classical shape of Christian liturgy” that has been described by scholars to be practiced in the early church was actually the result of a deliberate amalgamation of the different Christian traditions during the fourth century with Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity and was not the survival of a pattern of Christian worship from the time of Jesus and the apostles (p 211).
In Chapter Seven, Bradshaw admits that there are evidences for some common features that transcend the diversity of local practices but he also points out that these features do not always share the same meaning. He therefore concludes that “there are too many variations in structure and theology to allow us to construct a single picture in anything but the very broadest terms” (p 170). …show more content…
Here, he cautions against overemphasising the contrast between Pre and Post-Nicene worship and points out that the influx of new members resulted in some constitutional changes, He suggests that the influences of new disciples (formerly pagan people) led to changes in the understanding, application and format of the main rituals (p 229). He refers to this evolution as “seeds of further liturgical destruction” (p 219) and deduces evidence of a “tendency towards disintegration instead of the full flowering of the Christian vision” (p 213).
Chapter Ten shows Bradshaw's scholarly scepticism betraying him because he speaks of “the Christian vision” after extensive work on his part to emphasise the diversity of Christian liturgical practices and theologies, a theory that he oftentimes exposes in other scholars. Moreover, from Bradshaw’s admission in the preface of being a splitter, it could be suggested that he is perhaps being pessimistic and far more knowledge is known by scholars than he maintains. (p