Kelly - Acts 18

Acts seems to read to me like a bit of a history book - the sequence and facts that are the basis for so many of the letters to follow. Paul in Corith - leading to his letters to the Corinthians later. Paul in Ephesus - leading to later letters to the Ephesians. An introduction to Apollos who evidently converted many and led to the first "denomination" type battles in the early church ("some say they are followers of Apollos, some of Paul, but there is one baptism, one Lord, one faith" - 1 Corinthians 3)

Makes we wonder about the canon. What would the history of the church have been if we had writings of Apollos in the Bible? He was decidedly orthodox according to Paul, so I don't see that these would have been left out intentionally. More likely Apollos just didn't leave written arguments behind - didn't send the letters or spend much time in prison to write - or perhaps was not able to write. He was "eloquent" and "well-versed in scripture" which seems to imply to me that he was literate - but not necessarily so.

It has always troubled me some that the writings of Paul form so much a basis for our church history. (I see this more in the Lutheran church than the Methodist - where Paul leads to Augustine leads to Luther pretty directly in theology.) Paul was one of the greatest church leaders - but only one of them. The writings of Peter are few, and of James and John and Mark....Paul's letters make up over half of what we know about the early church and its beliefs. While this has some merit for our lives today, since Paul was the one most involved in taking the truth of Christ into different cultures and competing religious viewpoints (the Roman world, not just the Jewish world) - what have we lost by losing the voices of the other evangelists? What would Apollos have to say?