Excursus: The Authenticity of the Speech of St. Stephen18

The First Martyr for Christ (Acts 7)

Vs. 1 The speech is prompted by the high priest asking if the charges against St. Stephen are true.

Vs. 2 Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοὶ καὶ πατέρες so St. Stephen is addressing the Jews—Acts 13:1.

Ὁ θεὸς τῆς δόξης

πρὶν ἢ κατοικῆσαι. The account in Genesis does not give this appearance of the Lord previously to Abraham’s leaving Mesopotamia (unless the E.V. is correct in translatingוַיֹּאמֶר in Gen 12:1 as a pluperfect). Philo distinctly negates the appearance, but mentions an oracle. Though neither is mentioned in the narrative in Genesis, yet some divine injunction seems to be implied in Gen 15:7; Neh 9:7.

The words of v. 3 are the words given in Genesis, as spoken to Abraham in Haran (supposing the pluperfect is untenable). Philo lays great stress on these two misquotations, as symbolizing two different steps of intellectual advancement.

Vs. 3 It is remarkable, in connection with v. 4 (μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν πατέρα) that St. Stephen here omits the clause καὶ ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ πατρός σου found in both LXX and Heb. The quotation is otherwise verbatim from the LXX.

Vs. 4 Χαρράν

μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ (on the chronological difficulty see Alford).

If the text of Genesis is not corrupt, the difficulty is certainly beyond clearing up: but the boasted purity of the Hebrew text has reasonably been questioned, and in Numbers especially: there is room for error. In fact a comparison of the Hebrew and the LXX in Genesis 12 gives a variation in at least half the numbers which occur there. When as here, the LXX and Hebrew agree, there is less likely to be an error: but still it is very possible—only it must have crept in very early.

Vs. 5 κληρονομίαν ἐν αὐτῇ οὐδὲ βῆμα ποδòς

The expression οὐδὲ βῆμα ποδός from LXX Deut 2:5.

καὶ ἐπηγγείλατο the correct reading

Vss. 6-7 A compendium of the prophecies with regard to their sojourning in Egypt. The main prophecy is in Gen 15:13 from which these words are taken, with the exception of καὶ λατρεύσετε τῷ θεῷ ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ which comes from Ex 3:12

ἔτη τετρακόσια See Gal 3:17.

Vs. 8 διαθήκην περιτομῆς. To be connected with ἔτη τετρακόσια in verses 6-7.

The argument in St. Stephen’s mind being probably similar to that of St. Paul in Gal 3:17. See Gen 15:13-14. πάροικον ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου ἐν γῇ οὐκ ἰδίᾳ καὶ δουλώσουσιν αὐτοὺς . . . καὶ ταπεινώσουσιν αὐτοὺς τετρακόσια ἔτη. τὸ δὲ ἔθνος ᾧ ἐὰν δουλεύσωσιν κρινῶ ἐγώ μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐξελεύσονται ὧδε μετὰ ἀποσκευῆς πολλῆς, but ὧδε is not represented in the original. And also Ex 3:12 (to Moses in Horeb) καὶ λατρεύσετε τῷ θεῷ ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ (Horeb).

Vs. 11 χορτάσματα See notes Phil 4:12. χορτάζεσθαι

Vs. 12 εἰς Αἴγυπτον Winer § 7 p. 576sq (Moulton). Comp. Acts 8:40; this is not an exact parallel. Note the emphatic position of εἰς Αἴγυπτον. Man purposes, but God disposes. It was in God’s providence that they should sojourn in Egypt. Ver. 9. Ver. 10, v. 11, here v. 12 (15) ver. 17, ver. 18 (omited in Text. Receptus etc.) More probable than the Text. Receptus. ἐν Αιγυπτῳ is best taken with ἐξαπέστειλεν.

σιτία, more general than σίτα or σῖτον, σιτία probably farm foods of any kind.

Vs. 14 ψυχαῖς ἑβδομήκοντα The ἐν is from LXX. Gen. This number is from the LXX, the Hebrew having ‘70.’ The additional five are made up from the descendants of Joseph—a son and grandson of Manasseh, two sons and a grandson of Ephraim—their names are given in the LXX. Basis is Ex 1:5 the LXX has 75, here the Heb has 70. In Deut 10:22, seventy is undisturbed (cf. Bengel). Gen 46:27. πᾶσαι ψυχαὶ οἴκου Ιακωβ αἱ εἰσελθοῦσαι (μετὰ Ιακωβ) εἰς Αἴγυπτον (ψυχαὶ) ἑβδομήκοντα (κοντα)πέντε. Though so expressed the context is quite explicit, but it includes Joseph’s descendants in Egypt. For it is before stated that those who came with Jacob were 66 in number (ver. 26) and the sons of Joseph born in Egypt 9. Some texts (e.g. A) omit μετὰ Ιακωβ. An Egyptian Hebrew may have had some Egyptian sources of information.

Vs. 16 As for the textual variants here (1) ἐν Συχέμ א*, B, C, Heb. (2) τοῦ ἐν Συχέμ A א^c E. (3) τοῦ Συχέμ D Vulg. The A.V. has the father of Shechem, but not the Greek.

Vs. 19 τοῦ denoting a purpose as usual, and dependant on κατασοφισάμενος. Ex 2:2 ἀστεῖος simply (cf. Heb. טוּב). κατασοφισάμενος from LXX Ex 1:10. To deal out by craft.

ζωογονεῖσθαι Ex 1:17 καὶ ἐζῳογόνουν τὰ ἄρρενα and v. 18. Cf. 1:22. ζωογονεῖν means preserve alive. Judges 8:19 εἰ ἐζῳογονήκειτε αὐτούς οὐκ ἂν ἀπέκτεινα ὑμᾶς. Perhaps it comes to be rendered ‘grant life to them’—they being regarded as dead-men. Luke 17:33 ζῳογονήσει αὐτήν is not conclusive. In 1 Tim 6:13 ζῳογονοῦντος is the right reading.

Vs. 20 ἀστεῖος τῷ θεῷ Cf. LXX Jonah 3:3. πόλις μεγάλη τῷ θεῷ. Bengel ‘an exceeding great city’; E.V. Josephus Ant. ii. 9.6. (See Smith’s Dict. p. 428 and 2 Cor 10:4 δυνατὰ τῷ θεῷ). Cf. Also Gen 10:9. before the Lord .לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה

22 .sVπάσῃ σοφίᾳ Αἰγυπτίων (See Stanley in Smith’s Dict. p. 426). Philo Vit. Mos. i.5; Josephus c. Ap. i.26, 28, 31; (Artapanus, Eupolemas) Praep. Evang. ix. 26, 27; Clement Alex i. p. 363. See Lightfoot, II 670. Parallels in R. Jochanan ben Zacchai and R. Akibah. Doubtless these are suggested by the parallel.

Vs. 23 τεσσερακονταετὴς Xl. Comp. v. 30.

ἐπληροῦτο Imp: See Bengel.

Ex 2:11 μέγας γενόμενος

Irenaeus ii.22.4.

Vs. 26 αὐτοῖς συνήλλασσεν could have . . . How can Alford read συνήλλασεν? On συνήλλασσνεν cf. Bereshita Rabba . . . 115.3. Moses lived in Pharaoh’s palace 40 years, in Judea 40 years and journeying to Israel 40 years. See also Ha. p. 771 ref. cf. Ex 7:40; Deut 31:1. who divided the first 80 years into 2.

ἄνδρες, ἀδελφοί ἐστε· ἵνα τί ἀδικεῖτε ἀλλήλους E.V. correctly. Not as Alford. Not a quotation. The words given in Ex 2:13 are quite diff. διὰ τί σὺ τύπτεις τὸν πλησίον.

Vss. 27-28 from Ex 2:14 word for word LXX, except the phrase ἐχθές (v. l.).

Vs. 30 ἄγγελος see Exodus 3:2. The Angel of the Lord. Ex 3:4. ‘The Lord’

Vss. 33-34 from Ex 3:5, 7, 8, 10. Agreeing almost verbatim with the LXX. But here again the passage is directly or fully quoted, the intention of the speaker being only to give those parts which elucidated some new stage in God’s dealings with His people. As the narrative is a compendium, so are the quotations also. He does not give the prophecies in full. He gives only the heads. In vs. 34 ἀποστείλω is the correct reading—as in LXX.

Vs. 35 ἀπέσταλκεν Where the effects are permanent. Especially the typical character. e.g. Gal 4:23 γεγέννηται; 1 Tim 2:14 γέγονεν; Heb 7:6 δεδεκάτωκεν.

ἄρχοντα καὶ λυτρωτὴν cf. Acts 7:31. cf. Acts 2:36; 3:13sq.

Vs. 38 Moses regards as a μεσίτης comp. Gal 3:19, 20; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24.

Vs. 40 Almost verbatim with LXX.

Vs. 41 ἐμοσχοποίησαν Images or symbols of idolatry. The calf is the clearest. The calf of Jeroboam. Jeroboam’s connection with Egypt. But ἐμοσχοποεῖν is not in the LXX. Ex 32:4, 8; Deut 9:16; Ps 105:10, nor elsewhere. A contemptuous word. See references in Sophocles, Lex., Justin. Oral., Ig. Comp. μοσχοποιία ibid., 6, 7.

Vs. 42 Comp. St. Paul Romans 1:24, 26, 28.

ἐν βίβλῳ τῶν προφητῶν Amos 5:25. The Old Testament is conveniently referred to under two heads ὁ νομος καὶ οἱ πρ-. Thus twofold division being used as exhaustive. Cf. Luke 16:16, 29, 31; John 1:46 etc. But sometimes a triple division is adopted. Luke 24:44 ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωϋσέως καὶ τοῖς προφήταις καὶ ψαλμοῖς.

ἐν βίβλῳ. The article omitted because βίβλῳ τῶν προφητῶν is regarded as a title e.g. Mt 1:1. Βίβλος γενέσεως; Luke 3:4 ἐν βίβλῳ λόγων Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου; Luke 20:42 ἐν βίβλῳ ψαλμῶν. St. Luke’s usual way of quotation. It’s more precise than in the other Evv. But it’s βιβλίον in Luke 4:17.

Vss. 42-43 Some considerable variations from the Hebrew but agreeing very exactly with LXX. The LXX μή brings out the emphasis, the Hebrew is simply the interrogative particle ה.

Vs. 43 This verse from Amos 5:26 refers to the idolatrous worship of the Phoenician counterpart to Saturn. Heb. סִכּוּת מַלְכְּכֶם as here; LXX τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Μόλοχ. (Luther Bible—einen König).

The Heb. signifies the tabernacle of your king—But inasmuch as the word Molech serves as a name, though in Heb. always with the art. המלך which signifies ‘the king,’ the LXX translators were justified in translating it ‘Molech,’ esp. as the context clearly shows that the reference is to the worship of this Phoenician Saturn. The remaining part of the verse in the Hebrew runs: וְאֵת כִּיּוּן צַלְמֵיכֶם כּוֹכַב אֱ הֵכֶם.

‘And your images, the star of your god’ (E.V.). The LXX has here καὶ τὸ ἄστρον τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν Ραιφαν τοὺς τύπους αὐτῶν οὓς κ.τ.λ.- (Ῥεμφαν is not so well supported) where the translation has slightly reversed the order and translated כִּיּוּן Ραιφαν or Ρεφαν. (N.B. Ρεφαν would seem to be the accusative and not the genitive: at least this could bring it more closely in accordance with the Heb). The star of your god, namely Rephan. The Hebrew Chuin is the Arabic name, the LXX Rephan is the Coptic for the same, the planet Saturn, the symbol of the god Molech—the LXX interpreters preferred translating not its Egyptian equivalent, the word Chiun, which would have had no meaning for their fellow countrymen. It is to be observed that the Syriac translation of the O.T. takes כִּיּוּן to represent the Arabic for the planet and so also several Jewish commentators.

Speaking of the Carthaginians, Diod. Sic. xx.14 (ap. Winer Realus. ii. p. 101) says ἡν παρ αῦτοις ἀνδριας κρόνου καλκοῦς, ἐκτετακαις τας χείρας ὑπτιας, εγκελιμενας ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. ἐστε τὸν ἐπιτεθὲντα τῶν παὶδων ἀποκυλὶεσθαι καὶ πιπτειν ἒις τι χὰσμα πληρος πυρος. And in another passage xx.25 he also mentions a ιερα σκηνη as being carried about with the Carthaginian camp (E.V. in Amos ‘of your Molech’).

Of the symbolical meaning of this use of Molech and of the corresponding Greek legend regarding Amos, see Mac . . . i.p. Winer. Is the planet Saturn chosen as the representative of time because his periodic time was the greatest of all the known planets and therefore the best representative of time absolutely? On Ρεφαν or Ραιφαν see Winer Real. s.v. Saturn ii. p. 386.

כיון is interpreted by Gesenius and others ‘of the frame or carriage.’ See his Lexicon s.v.

ἐπέκεινα Βαβυλῶνος. In Amos it is Δαμασκοῦ both in LXX and Heb. The quotation is here again adapted to the after event. We must not expect any more exactness in the quotation, than the occasion demands. St. Stephen’s motive was to give a compendium narrative of Jewish history and the manner of his quotation is subordinated to this purpose. He abbreviates and curtails. He combines different passages. He at times, as here, substitutes words, a way of interpretation which enables him to include the narrative with much greater brevity.

The words of the prophet τὴν σκηνὴν τοὺς τύπους serve as a link of connection between the two parts of the speech. St. Stephen had hitherto been speaking chiefly of the Mosaic dispensation (τὰ ἒθη τοῦ Μωϋσέως): he now turns directly to the other topic (ὁ τόπος ὁ ἃγιος). We have the history of the Holy Place. The quotation from Amos allowed him to make this transition naturally.

Vs. 44 Ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου, Cf. Heb 8:5. The construction of this ark is described Ex 25–27. It is prefaced with the words let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them. According to all that I show them after the pattern of the tabernacle etc. (Ex 25:8-9) and again Ex 25:40 LXX (and so Heb). ὅρα ποιήσεις κατὰ τὸν τύπον τὸν δεδειγμένον σοι ἐν τῷ ὄρει.

The phrase Ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου is devised from the LXX translation of Num 16:18-19 and elsewhere מועד אהל. Note the word מועד is generally interpreted ‘congregation,’ or better ‘meeting.’ Ex 25:22; Num 17:19; Heb. But A.V. Num 17:4. See Gesenius s.v. p. 606. Alford should have mentioned that the phrase the ark of the testimony is found Ex 25:22. τῆς κιβωτοῦ τοῦ μαρτυρίου. LXX. Cf. Ex 25:16, 21. So that the phrase Ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου is in some manner justified, even if it could be shown, as it cannot, that the LXX is wrong. Winer accepts the LXX translation as adequate.

Excursus: The Tabernacle

(1) The semblance of the tabernacle of the seventy returns.

(2) The difference. It was this which constituted its testimony.

ἦν τοῖς πατράσιν The correct reading, and the sure expression. They had this other σκηνή.

LXX has κατὰ πάντα ὅσα σοι δεικνύω ἐν τῷ ὄρει.

עוד (Hiph ועיד העד [Impt ויעד]). The other expression אהל העדת is rightly translated tabernacle of the testimony ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου Num 17:17; 18:2, etc. (See Smith’s Dict. s.v. Tabernacle p. 1414). The force of μαρτυρίον here must not be overlooked. The tabernacle which was a testimony to God and a testimony against false gods. Num 17:19: ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ τοῦ μαρτυρίου κατέναντι τοῦ μαρτυρίου.

Vs. 45 διαδεξάμενοι not rec. ἀυτὴν. I do not see on what ground Alford condemned the sense of ‘in succession’ as ungrammatical.

ἐν τῇ κατασχέσει in the taking possession of the nations, i.e. their territory.

ἕως τῶν ἡμερῶν An abridged expression. And this in the time of David.

Vs. 46 Ps. 132:5 (131:5) ἕως οὗ εὕρω τόπον τῷ κυρίῳ σκήνωμα τῷ θεῷ Ἰακώβ.

. . . τῷ οἰκῷ א*, B, D, H . . .

Vs. 48 χειροποιήτοις om. ναοίς. A temple made with hands—depreciating.

Vs. 49 The quotation agrees in the main with the LXX and Heb. The variations being quite unimportant. Isaiah 66:1

Vs. 51 In spite of Alford’s note, if we suppose that St. Stephen’s hearers manifested some signs of impatience at the application of these words of the prophets—as they naturally would—we shall be much better able to appreciate the turn that his speech takes.

On ἀπερίτμητοι καρδίαις Ezek 44:7, 9 where the expression is used of the foreigner. See Jer 9:25 from which it is more directly taken πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἀπερίτμητα σαρκί καὶ πᾶς οἶκος Ισραηλ ἀπερίτμητοι καρδίας αὐτῶν. This recommends the reading of B καρδίος. Comp. Jer 6:10 ἰδοὺ ἀπερίτμητα τὰ ὦτα αὐτῶν καὶ οὐ δύνανται ἀκούειν where again it applies to the Israelites. Also comp. Deut. 10:16; Jer 4:4. Bengel’s note is good. His ‘in dispositiones angelorum’ is the correct rendering and well explained.

Vs. 52 comp. Mt 23:35; Luke 11:51.

τοῦ δικαίου Is 3:10 (LXX) δήσωμεν τὸν δίκαιον ὅτι δύσχρηστος ἡμῖν ἐστιν to which as found in LXX for the Heb is quite different, pertaining to what St. Stephen refers. Strangely enough Hegesippus refers it to James the Just Ap. Eus. H.E. ii.23.

νῦν in late days. ἐγένεσθε likely to be preferred to γεγένησθε.

Jerome ad. loc. says of the LXX reading ‘per spiare de Christi dictum passiare’ (IV. p. 57). It is so applied in Barnabas Ep. 6 . . . δήσωμεν.

The LXX has got hold of the verb אסר for אמר.

אמרו צדיק כי־תוב

Justin Dial. 17, 133, 136, 137. In § 137 he mentioned . . . Ἄρωμεν, δήσωμεν.

Vs. 53 εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων Διαταγή means more than an injunction, disposition. In N.T. it is found only here and Rom 13:2. And its meaning here is explained by Gal 3:19.

εἰς two ways of explaining: (1) ‘On’ or ‘at’ of angels. See Winer § 49 p. 496, Mt 12:41; Rom 4:20. (2) For i.e. as in Acts 13:22, and above Acts 7:21. See Winer § 32 p. 288.

Vs. 55 δόξαν θεοῦ Not θεός himself for no man hath seen God at any time. Therefore it was the symbol of His presence which was revealed—pertaining to a bright light—like the shekinah or glory which betokened His presence on the mercy seat.

ἑστῶτα On Ἰησοῦν ἑστῶτα. See Chrysostom.

This was a fit revelation to be made to him, to strengthen him in his hour of trial—for St. Stephen had declared the dispensation of the ‘God of Glory’ and connected it with the coming of ‘Jesus.’

Vs. 56 υἱὸν θεοῦ See Alford. Clem. Recogn. ii.37. Aures continuo obcludens, velut ne blasphemia polluantur.

τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου The taking up of humanity with God through the incarnation and resurrection of Christ. The central truth of Christianity. He is τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. See Eph 2:5-6. This is the fit conclusion of the historical narrative, commencing with the appearance of the God of Revelation to Abraham in Mesopotamia and at the first setting apart of a church. A fulfillment of Mt 26:64 (as Alford sees) is significant in itself.

Vs. 57 κράξαντες δὲ κ.τ.λ. Compare the similar expression in Mt 26:65? Isa. Eph 4.

βύσαντες τὰ ὦτα. συνέσχον τὰ ὦτα

On the taking away of the power of inflicting capital punishment taken away from the Sanhedrin before the fall of Jerusalem—See B.T. Sanhed. 26a, 24a. cf. John 18:31.

The facts seem to be:

(1) That the Sanhedrin had not the powers of capital punishment.

(2) That they occasionally exercised this power anyway, e.g. Ananas in the case of James the Just. Josephus Ant. xx.9.9. Ir. Alb. calls him to account. Cf. Lev 24:14. Heb 13:12. οἱ μάρτυρ Deut 17:7.

(3) That Pilate had probably been recalled about this time. Pilate left about A.D. 36. That this would be a very good opportunity for any irregular usurpation: as in the case of James the Just.

(4) That the narrative describes the proceedings as tumultuous. There is no reference to the verdict that found condemnation.

Vs. 60 μὴ στήσῃς The objection of De Wette & Meyer (which Alford adopts) to the sense ‘weight’ is surely without force—surely the language of our liturgy ‘not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences’ is felt to be just as adequate (as the punishment is proportionate to the sin. The sin must be weighed first.) But ‘weigh’ is not the sense for στήσῃς which is naturally the one in such a context, and therefore should be discarded. στήσῃς ‘set up, give it a standing place’—and so ‘reckon.’ Rom 10:3. Of the stoning of St. Stephen considered in its bearing on the functions of the Sanhedrin. See Winer. Real. s.v. Synedrium. (1 Cor 1:2. See Rom 10; 2 Tim 2:22)

Vs. 59 ἐπικαλούμενον See Acts 9:14, 21. (pert. Acts 2:21 comp. Jer 36)

Summary

The speech of St. Stephen appears at first sight to contain merely a compendious narrative of the early history of God’s dealings with His chosen people—concluding with an outburst of indignation—at which point the speaker is interrupted and not allowed to proceed.

This is evidently an inadequate view: (1) Such a narrative would have served no purpose as regards his hearers inasmuch as the facts narrated were known to all and (2) with regard to himself, though they [i.e. the facts] might serve as a confession of his faith. Still this was not the point of the accusation. He was not charged with unbelief, but with maintaining the transitory nature of the Mosaic dispensation and the temple worship.

The speech is certainly interrupted—more than this—there are manifestations, as it advances, of the impatience of the hearers. The narrative, which is given in greater detail at first, becomes more abbreviated as if the speaker saw that he would not be allowed to proceed much further, he cuts short the whole of the period subsequent to the time of Solomon by a quotation from the prophet, modified in form (Βαβυλῶνος substituted for Δαμασκοῦ), so as to lead him on this second point. Then comes the outburst of indignation—and this consummates the impatience of his hearers.

We must seek for the interpretation of the speech (1) in the accusation made against him, (2) in his choice and arrangement of the facts of his narrative, and hints contained in it, (3) lastly in the manner in which these and similar facts are treated as regards their bearing on the New Testament dispensation, in other parts of the New Testament—especially in St. Paul.

For St. Stephen was justly regarded as the forerunner of St. Paul. It is as the dawn to the full shining of daylight—St. Stephen first enunciates the fact of the transitory nature of the Mosaic dispensation, and that the worship of God is not to be confined to particular places, on which St. Paul dwells with his characteristic energy—in St. Paul therefore (and in the Epistle to the Hebrews by consequence) we are to look for suggestions as to the interpretation of the speech.

As to the effects of the Stephen Speech on St. Paul we may conjecture from what source the historian derived his account of this speech. There was a young man standing by while the speech was delivered, of the same age probably with the speaker with some natural gifts, educated perhaps under the same influences and no less zealous than this Stephen, BUT with very different feelings. He viewed the speaker with all the rancor of religious hatred. He would drink in every word which was uttered, seeking how he might find in it some matter of accusation. The very language and expression of the speaker would dwell on his mind. The heavenly radiance which lit up his countenance as he spoke, the manly and fearless tones of the speaker, the burst of holy indignation, a sign more of love than of anger—his exclamation, ‘I see the heavens opened,’ his commending his spirit to Christ and his prayer for his murderers, all those would make a deep impression on the mind of Saul. One so thoughtful as he was, would during his journey to Damascus be naturally meditating on the event of the previous days. It would seem strange to him that one rather like him should have arrived at such different results—that Stephen should be the sufferer, Saul the persecutor. He must have had some misgivings as to the uprightness of his actions. He would read the words of the martyr again and again. And after his miraculous conversion, by which the whole tenor of his life was changed, during that period of blindness [all the moreso], while he had not yet learnt what he must do to be saved, and duly knew that henceforth he must be a servant of that Jesus whom he had persecuted—when his eye could not rest on any objects, and he was left to the reflections of his own deeds—what more natural than that he should turn again and again to the speech of Stephen which seemed to contain the only solution to his present perplexity? It is the one thing, which would have dwelt especially on his memory—the one passage in his life that he would remember most minutely.

And indeed we have ample evidence that it did so dwell on his mind. We are constantly meeting in the writings of the apostle passages that remind us most forcibly of the defense of that first martyr. Standing out: Areopagus, and pleading the cause of Christ before the Athenians, his position was similar to that of Stephen. And St. Stephen’s words are on his lips. And seeing that He is the Lord of heaven and earth, dwelling not in temples made by hands (Acts 17:24). Of the older covenant St. Paul says that act was διαταγεὶς ὑπ’ ἀγγέλων. St. Stephen before had told the Jews that they received it εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων. Other parallel passages might be adduced—to say nothing of the whole tenor of St. Paul’s teaching. As the historian then was a companion of St. Paul, we cannot doubt who was his informant, nor can we be surprised at the exactness of his information.

Now the key points of the accusation against St. Stephen are two. That he maintained (1) that Jesus could destroy the temple, (2) that He would change the Mosaic institutions. Two main threads run through his narrative, turning to them in reverse order corresponding to these two heads. The first one is prominent in the earlier; the other is the latter part of the speech.

1. Mosaic Dispensation Acts 7:2-43

2. The Holy Place Acts 7:44-50. (But at the same time the one is more or less implied in the other.)

The quotation from Amos with which the former division closes enables him to turn without any abruptness to the second branch of his subject. Cf. ἀνελάβετε τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Μόλοχ . . . τοὺς τύπους οὓς ἐποιήσατε with Ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου . . . ποιῆσαι αὐτὴν κατὰ τὸν τύπον ὃν ἑωράκει i.e. not of their own caprice, but the type of God’s ordaining.

How then are we to suppose that St. Stephen would have applied this narrative if he had not been interrupted? A. Historically. B. Symbolically or Typically, showing in both these ways that the older dispensation and the temple worship pointed to the mediator of a new covenant.

(A) Historical Application. i.e. by tracing the gradual development of God’s purpose in His dealings with men. Showing that His dealings are always progressive and do not take a stereotyped form—and that therefore the Mosaic dispensation—consisting of fixed ordinances and the Temple worship—confined to a single spot can only be regarded as temporary—as leading to something higher than the Mosaic dispensation. We can scarcely doubt that St. Stephen would have made such an application of the narrative as St. Paul afterwards does of the same facts—in Gal 3:4—that the promise was prior to the law and therefore the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ. The law which was 430 years after cannot annul the promise, or make it of more effect, that the law was added because of transgressions—‘ordained by angels.’ It served a temporary purpose—‘It was the servant which was to lead us to the school of Christ’ (παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν). Nay that at the very time it was given, Moses led the people to look forward to a future dispensation. ‘A prophet shall the Lord God raise up like unto me.’ ‘Unto him shall ye hearken.’ This part of the narrative can be outhned as follows:

A. History of the Mosaic Dispensation:

1. The Preparation of the Patriarchs Acts 7:2-16: This period is dwelt upon to show that God’s covenant with His people inaugurates the dispensation of the Law of Moses.

2. The Fulfillment Acts 7:17-37

3. The Rebellion and Punishment

4. The Catastrophe Acts 7:38-43. Cf. Acts 7:6 ἔτη τετρακόσια v. 8 ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ διαθήκην περιτομῆς Here are the elements of such an interpretation. In verse 38 the word ἐκκλησίᾳ is purposely closer to show the historical continuity. Note the λόγια ζῶντα [in the same verse]. The oracles had been the sign of growth, progress. They were not a dead letter but a quickening spirit; not a stereotypical form, not a new code of ordinance, but a principle of life and therefore of development. Heb 4:12.

B. The Temple Worship (Thus we are brought to the period which relates especially to the second point, the local sanctuary.) (cf. Baumgarten p. 157sqq) As the promise to Abraham preceded the giving of the law, so the tabernacle preceded the temple. The tabernacle was confined to no fixed locality—it moved about from place to place. It was not till the time of Solomon that the temple had been built—that David had designed it and not been permitted to accomplish it due to the sovereignty of Yahweh—and a proof not only of His ability, but also of His will to remove the seat of His worship according to His good pleasure.

(B) The Typical or Symbolical. We may view any person or event not only with regard to his or its place in history, i.e. in the progressive development of God’s dealing with men, as one link in a chain—but also as a symbol or type, of that which will recur again and again. Such an application may be made with more or less exactness in ordinary History, but in Sacred History we are taught especially to look for these analogies and as the Life of Christ and the Foundation of the Church are the turning point of the world’s History—the events of this epoch bring of incalculably greater importance than those of any other—so we may consider them as the antitype to which all the minor repetitions of similar circumstances stand in the relation of types—they’re the substance, the others the shadow. This is one application of the great principle of analogy. The higher principle that dispenses with fixed sanctuaries, with localized religion, has been shown to him through the history of the race.

Abraham the father of the faithful chosen of God—received his call in Mesopotamia (Acts 7:2). He did not go to the land of promise (Acts 7:6). When he reached Palestine he had not really settled, not given even a footing there (ver. 6). It was foretold to him that his descendants should live for centuries in a foreign land under a foreign tyrant (Acts 7:7). This did come to pass. God’s grace was (Acts 7:42) then removal from the land of promise (Ex 9–15). The patriarch died in Egypt. His bones were removed to Palestine indeed. But they were deposited not in Jerusalem, but in the capitol of the Samaritans, at the Mount of Gerazim.

Now there may be great danger in its application in individual cases owing to the latitude which it allows but still we have sufficient authority for applying it to the interpretation of Scripture—not only in the broader facts, but also in the minor details—as the following instances will show. St. Paul treats the history of Hagar and Sarah (Gal 4:22) as an allegory (ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα) typifying the two covenants. He views the passing of the Israelites under the cloud and through the seas as prefiguring Christian baptism, and the eating of the manna and drinking of the water which flowed from the rock (1 Cor 10:1-3) as symbolizing the other sacrament—the partaking of the body and blood of Christ.

St. Peter views the deluge as signifying Christian Baptism, and the preservation of Noah and his family in the ark as betokening the salvation of the faithful in the ark of the church (1 Pet 4:21). The argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews is entirely built on this method of interpretation. The rebellion in the wilderness denotes the rejection of the gospel, the rest in Canaan the peace which in the consequence of the reception of it—Abraham giving tithe to Melchizedek represents the inferiority of the Mosaic to the Christian dispensation (Cf. Heb 11:8 ‘By faith Abraham when he was called to go out into a place which he should receive after for an inheritance [εἰς κληρονομίαν]obeyed and he went out not knowing whither he went.’)

The ordinances of the law, the sacrifices, the very furniture of the Holy Place had all this meaning: they were all foreshadowings of Christianity. Cf. esp. Heb 9:1-5, where after describing the construction and furniture of the holy place, the inspired writer says περὶ ὧν οὐκ ἔστιν νῦν λέγειν κατὰ μέρος [note v. 5] implying that each of these had a distinct Christian significance. Thus we are at liberty to apply this system of symbolical interpretation to this speech of St. Stephen if the phenomena exhibited by the speech itself justifies us in doing so. And there are good reasons for doing so. For:

(1) Let us consider the character of the speaker and the hearers. Stephen was in all probability a Hellenist. His accusers and therefore a large number of his hearers certainly belonged to this class (cf. Acts 6:9). The Alexandrians are especially mentioned. Now the allegorical interpretation, though allowed in the mother country, found especial favor with the Hellenists, and particularly the Alexandrians (witness Philo and the Alexandrian Fathers Origen and Clement). This treatment of Scripture could appeal at once to their peculiar bend of mind, and is therefore not unlikely to have been employed. The Epistle to the Hebrews exhibits this mode of treatment most thoroughly—and as it not improbably was penned by a Hellenist, it may serve in some degree, as a clue to the interpretation of St. Stephen’s speech.

(2) There are unmistakable hints (of which hereafter) that St. Stephen did select the events of his narrative with a view to something more than this historical bearing—in fact their allegorical meaning, e.g. vs. 37 προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμε or vs. 44 κατὰ τὸν τύπον ὃν ἑωράκει.

(3) There are certain minor details to which it is scarcely possible to assign any historical meaning—and therefore taking into account the manifest brevity which St. Stephen aimed at—we must suppose that they had a typical significance.

It is not always possible to fix this significance. In many cases I shall not attempt to do so. But the only way of accounting for their presence in the narrative appears to me to be by supposing that they had such a bearing—and the instances above given from other parts of the New Testament (esp. the Epistle to the Hebrews) show that there is nothing unjustifiable in the supposition. The test of this view will be in the success of its application. Let us then apply it to the two parts of the narrative.

1. The History of the Dispensation. Joseph—As Joseph was sold and delivered over to the heathen by his brethren, so was Christ also betrayed into the hands of the Gentiles by his brethren after the flesh—the Jewish people. He was betrayed not in his own person but also in the person of His church—but God was with Him. This persecution ended in His triumph. His own received Him not, but He became ruler over the Gentiles—God has given Him the heathen for His inheritance: But there is a famine in the land of Egypt and Canaan. The superstitions of heathendom and the lifeless formalism of Judaism are alike unable to satisfy the spiritual wants of men. The Jews are at length conscious of the shortcomings. It is from the granaries of Egypt—the storehouses that have been filled by the providence of Joseph—that the Jews themselves—Joseph’s brethren, must seek their food and this is exactly the view, as Thiersch remarks, which St. Paul presents (Rom 10:25 sqq) of the final restoration of Israel. ‘Blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.’ ‘And so all Israel shall be saved.’ These (the Jews) have also now not believed that through your (the Gentiles) mercy, they also may obtain mercy—Thus then as the family of Jacob were rescued from famine by Joseph’s influence in Egypt, so shall the Jewish race be finally restored through the power of Christ and the spread of the Gospel among the Gentiles.

The parallel between Moses and Christ is even more complete: and St. Stephen leaves no doubt on our minds that this parallel was intended by clenching his narrative (the facts of which are evidently chosen as having their counterparts in the Christian dispensation) with the prophecy of Moses in which distinct reference is made to it—v. 37 προφήτην . . . ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέ (Compare Acts 3:22).

As Moses was cast out to perils and providentially delivered, so was Jesus rescued when a child from the massacre of Herod. As Moses was ἀστεῖος τῷ θεῷ and instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, so Jesus increased in wisdom, as in stature and in form with God and man, like Moses when He was come to mature manhood. It came into His heart to visit His brethren the children of Israel—He began the work of restoration—He sought to deliver them from their bondage. He supposed His brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them, but they understood not. He came to His own and His own received Him not. When He would have taught them, they considered His interference and who made him a judge over us? We have no king but Caesar (John 19:15. Chrysostom). Yet, He was commissioned by God in a special manner to deliver His people—from the bondage of the spiritual Egypt. St. Stephen says of Moses v. 35, this Moses whom they refused saying, ‘Who made thee a ruler and a judge?’ The same did God send to be a redeemer as well as a ruler (καὶ ἄρχοντα καὶ λυτρωτὴν). He was the mediator of the Old Covenant. Acts 2:36; 3:13sq. St. Peter had said of Jesus (Acts 5:31): ‘The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye hanged on a tree. Him both God exalted to be a prince and a savior.’

As Moses wrought many miracles in the land of Egypt and in the Red Sea and in the wilderness, so also does Christ. In the land of Egypt—the place of bondage, while we are still under the dominion of sin, for Egypt is the prophetic type of sin. In the Red Sea, in the passage from the bondage of our natural state to the freedom in the gospel—whereunto we pass by baptism—the antitype of that deliverance of the Israelites when they crossed the sea (as St. Paul himself tells us). As they were baptized unto Moses in the Red Sea, so are we also unto Christ—and lastly in the wilderness—no more in the land of bondage—at length in the church—but in the church militant, downcast and afflicted. Here He works many miracles for us. He gives us a spiritual food and spiritual drink—in His other sacrament. Corresponding to the manna sent down from heaven and the water that miraculously flowed from the rock (which rock is Christ).

I am not here indulging in my own fancies: it is St. Paul again who teaches us so to read the miracles of Moses. And in interpreting the wilderness to be the militant Church we are only following in the footsteps of the unknown writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. He draws out this parallel at some length (e.g. Heb 3:11–4:11), comparing the temptations or trials which befell the Israelites to those which await us who have been called to a knowledge of the Gospel and exhorting us not to follow their disobedience if we would pass from the wilderness to the land of rest—in Canaan—from the Church militant to the Church triumphant. And St. Stephen himself calls attention to this parallel by employing the word ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ.

But as the Jews were disobedient to Moses, then so are they disobedient to Christ now: They turn him from them and in their hearts, turn back again into Egypt. Aaron headed the rebellion then: and now it is headed by Aaron’s successors, the high priest and the spiritual rulers. And so they will go from bad to worse, and God will give them over to their own idolatries and the end of all this will be: that they will be carried away beyond Babylon. They have only left one bondage to submit to another—Rahab (Egypt) and Babylon are frequently coupled together in the prophetic writings.

2. In coming to the Second Part of this Defense—that which regards the Holy Place—we observe that St. Stephen intimates that the very form of the tabernacle did symbolize something future. διετάξατο ὁ λαλῶν τῷ Μωϋσῇ ποιῆσαι αὐτὴν κατὰ τὸν τύπον ὃν ἑωράκει. The pattern of it was revealed by God. It would not perhaps be unjustifiable to presume that the fact of the tabernacle being constructed after a divine pattern did in itself imply that it was the type of something higher. But the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews leaves us no longer in any doubt on this point. The tabernacle is there referred to in language exactly parallel to this (Heb 8:5) only more definite, so as to serve as a community of our text—of the Jewish priests it is there said οἵτινες ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ λατρεύουσιν τῶν ἐπουρανίων, καθὼς κεχρημάτισται Μωϋσῆς μέλλων ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν σκηνήν· ὅρα γάρ φησιν, ποιήσεις πάντα κατὰ τὸν τύπον τὸν δειχθέντα σοι ἐν τῷ ὄρει.

And subsequently (Heb 9:2sqq) the writer describes the fashion of this tabernacle somewhat minutely and explains its typical significance. Can we doubt that St. Stephen could have made a similar application if he had not been interrupted?

If any of these analogies here given seem to be strained, they ought not to be allowed to be dismissed due to prejudices about our belief in the allegorical or typical bearing of the speech. It seems to exist beyond question—and it must be remembered that of the parallels which I have attempted to draw—the symbolical interpretation based thereon, a large proportion have not been arbitrarily assumed but are actually drawn from other parts of the New Testament. In many cases this is true of those analogies which perhaps a priori we should be disposed to consider somewhat fanciful. The principal point on which St. Stephen may have dwelt is the moral allegory of the tabernacle.

Excursus: The Authenticity of the Speech of St. Stephen

[N.B. in what follows the reference to S.R. is not to the initials of a person but to the book titled Supernatural Religion, first published in 1874, of which Lightfoot mentions page numbers from time to time. This book became a cause célèbre in its own day when published, and Lightfoot went so far as to write a full published rebuttal of it, much of which appeared in the periodical Contemporary Review between 1874 and May 1877 in installments, and then in full in the year of his death (1889) under the heading Essays on Supernatural Religion. It is clear how exercised he was by the book in what he says in this excursus/final Cambridge lecture given in 1879. The reason it is uppermost in his mind in 1879 is that a third volume had been added to the aforementioned provocation, and the third edition of Supernatural Religion was published in 1879. Lightfoot was continuing to respond.]

Firstly, here are the arguments of S.R. against the historical character of the narrative in Acts 7 and the authenticity of the Stephen speech in particular:

(1) The silence of St. Paul. Paul doesn’t mention Stephen ever or this event (p. 149). Response—No he doesn’t, nor does he mention any other person he was connected with prior to his conversion. If there had been any detached account of St. Paul’s earlier life or any direct notices of persons and events he was previously connected with, this silence might have required explanation. As it is, this observation is absolutely worthless.

(2) But S.R. continues, protesting the phrase τὴν ἐκκλησίαν κατὰ τοὺς οἴκους. Response—This reflects a singular inability to appreciate the city in which Saul and these Christians lived and moved. Saul moved rather like a machine, steadily, continuously in one particular direction.

(3) Then S.R. complains ‘the speech and the martyrdom made so little impression.’ He also complains that the characterization seems not to comport with real life. Response—That which is recorded as happening here has happened again and again in the life of this or that man. It is a matter of common physiological experience—the noble patience of the victim, the powerful arguments of the antagonist only seem to have made the man more ruthless, more implacable, but they lodge in the man’s heart a question there. Then suddenly comes some crisis, some upheaval in the man’s soul, which sets in motion some hidden elements of past experiences. Then in new circumstances things are seen in a new light. This is exactly how St. Paul represents his conduct in the passage quoted—Gal 1:11-17. Yes, Paul’s conversion was through a revelation of Jesus Christ, but is it to be supposed that Jesus Christ, himself a sufferer, made no use of the instrumentality of the Christian sufferers whom St. Paul had taken and whom were put to death? They were the text through which the Spirit preached and the Spirit interposed in St. Paul’s life. Does S.R. suppose that St. Paul had received every single fact about the life of Christ by direct revelation from heaven and not through narrative of eyewitnesses (see e.g. 1 Cor 15:1sq.)? These appearances are mentioned as part of the Gospel that he preached and yet obviously the accounts are received directly from eyewitnesses and indirectly from others who had heard from them. At all events, either way, the information came from human narratives.

(4) But incidentally S.R. finds an objection in the very narrative (p. 150 note 2). His argument is twofold: (a) there is no reason to suppose that St. Paul intended his lot to be decisive; (b) the appearance to St. Stephen was not of the kind which St. Paul could have seen or adduced. It was entirely a subjective revelation. It would therefore be no proof to any of the bystanders. Stephen’s speech is regarded as blasphemy, so little do they see.

(5) A major objection to both the event and the speech of St. Stephen comes from S.R.’s reading of the historical circumstances. He finds them improbable the council meeting and the speech itself he finds historically highly improbable (p. 151). Response—But it is this singular character of the story, which nonetheless has some elements in common with what we know has happened in Jewish history from time to time. History is constantly defying our declamations about what may or may not be historically probable. S.R.’s judgment is caused by assumptions that on closer inspection collapse. For example, there is the supposition that Jews did not have the power of capital punishment at the time. S.R. quotes St. John 18:31, but it is strange to find S.R. quoting John as an authority on historical matters (cf. Farrar, Life of Christ II, p. 368). According to the survey of the relevant forty years, capital punishment had only recently been taken from the Jews when our Lord suffered (see Josephus xx.9.1). S.R. dismisses contemptuously the supposition that it was during one of the intervals between procurators that St. Stephen was executed. But Pilate’s reign ended in a.d. 35 or latest 36 and it was about this time when this incident transpired.

(6) A further major objection of S.R. is based on the correspondences or parallels between the account in St. Luke’s Gospel of our Lord’s death, and the account in Acts 7 (p. 153). Response—Many of these elements in the accounts are due to similarities of place, time, and semi-judicial or judicial procedures (e.g. same police, officers etc.). Those parts that are especially similar are dwelt on by S.R. (e.g. Acts 7:56 comp. to Luke 22:69, sayings ascribed to St. Stephen and Jesus). But this saying of Jesus is not confined to St. Luke—it is found also in Mt 26:64; Mk 14:62 and the latter are in a form nearer to St. Stephen’s words. For instance comp. Mt 26:64 ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καθήμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως to Acts 7:56 θεωρῶ. . . . τὸν υἱὸν.

His second example is Acts 7:59 comp. Lk 23:46. Response—S.R. does not take into account that the words of the Lord are taken from Ps (30) 31:6 εἰς χεῖρας σου παραθήσομαι τὸ πνεῦμα μου. . . .

His third example is Acts 7:60 comp. Luke 23:34. Response—S.R. does not tell us that in St. Luke these words are wanting in the most important authorities B, D* and are obelisked or deleted by a contemporary or near contemporary corrector of A. W+H regard these words [in St. Luke] as not a part of the book as originally written but as retaining a high historical though not canonical authority (see pp. xxv, xxvii in W+H). In fact, the result is, that such resemblance as there is [between Acts 7 and Luke 23] is easily explicable on two grounds: 1) St. Stephen was likely placed in similar circumstances to Christ, and reflected the same mindset as Christ [in response]; 2) St. Luke reflects a special affection for such traits as prayer and forgiveness. But S.R. is the last man who should press such resemblances. The last words of dying men are often to commend their souls to God and Christ. Martyrs have often prayed such prayers, but in the specific language of the prayer of Jesus in Luke and that of Stephen there really is no resemblance (comp. Justin, Dialogue 105: ‘Father into thy hands . . . ’ word for word). These words of Jesus were probably reported in a wide variety of Christian accounts that are no longer extant. Notice that it is also present in Marcion’s Gospel as reported by Tertullian Adv. iv.41. S.R. maintains that Marcion’s Gospel was not dependent on St. Luke but rather on a much earlier source. Notice that Hegisippus puts exactly the same words into the mouth of James the Just. Moreover this saying is credited as the Lord’s in the Clementine Homilies ix.20. If you read right through the argument in S.R. the author supplies his own refutation.

Now I believe that [S.R.] says at the moment what he believes to be true. But he is clearly a special pleader and he asks himself on each occasion not ‘what is the probable inference from this fact,’ but rather ‘what inference can I get out of this fact that suits my purpose’? Hence he is constantly contradicting himself in various parts of his volume (e.g. the angel at the pool of Bethesda—Vol. I p. 103 [p. 133 in ed. 2]). In edition 1 he says it was certainly a later interpolation, in edition 2 he says probably. Or in Vol. II p. 421: ‘the passage did originally belong to the text but has from an early period been omitted from the mss. on account of the difficulties it presents’—and then he gives reasons.

(7) Improbability of Historicity based on Overpressing St. Luke’s verbage (S.R. p. 155). This is an inference drawn by S.R. from what is said in Acts 6:12. Response—The incidents must have taken some time, and may have taken some considerable amount of time. The false interpretations silenced, the tumult excited among the people, the worry of the elders and scribes, the summoning of the council from all parts of Jerusalem under the presidency of the high priest. Indeed the text suggests a current of apprehension was implied. Further, the council meets as a regular meeting of the Sanhedrin, and the accused is asked if he pleads guilty and thus he makes his defense.

But S.R. asks, How came the record to be preserved? Response—Feats of memory are not uncommon, especially among the Jews. The Talmud speaks of traditions [orally] preserved for centuries, especially materials from the sacred books. The same could be said of the materials in the Gospels. But we need not rely just on that. Notes would have been taken at such a meeting and kept. Public notes certainly, private notes probably. There is evidence of scribes using shorthand in this era (see Meyer, Latin Literature, p. 175, referring to some of Cicero’s speeches, Galen, Hippolytus, comp. Justin, Apolog. I.35).

(8) It is complained that there are inaccuracies, more specifically ‘glaring contradictions of the statements in the Old Testament’ (S.R. p. 157). Response—The real particulars of these inaccuracies I will speak to hereafter, but they show, so far as they bear on the argument at all, they in fact speak to the genuineness of the speech, much more natural in the hurry of a spoken address or of a shorthand report, than in a rhetorical effort composed in the calm of the study. Indeed some of these errors are quite improbable on the thesis that this speech is a later fiction. Just in proportion as these errors are ‘glaring’ so they are unlikely to be contrived.

(9) The Resemblances between the Stephen Speech and the later Speeches of Peter and Paul (pp. 159-60). He suggests that the author has perhaps inserted here some passages out of the Pauline epistles—Rom 1:24; 2:29; Gal 3:19. Response—But St. Paul may well have been influenced by St. Stephen.

S.R. derives some narrative from the Gospel of St. Luke, thus it is made to do double duty. Of the rest some is taken from other speeches in Acts—Acts 22:1; 27:24; 22:14. Then there are resemblances to the speech of St. Peter—vs. 5 an allusion to the covenant given to Abraham, vs. 32 ‘the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.’ Response—But these are all most familiar expressions to the ear of a Jew, they occur again and again in Jewish prayers. We should rather expect some of these sorts of expressions in a Jewish speech of any length.

He points to vs. 37—a quotation from Deut 18:15. It is quoted in a different way in the two passages. Scribes have seen this and sought to make them conform [to each other]. It is quoted for instance in Clemen. Hom. iii.53. And yet he says (p. 21) ‘no use pretending that the Clemen. Hom. provide any evidence of the use or existence of the Acts.’ Response—The fact is that this was a recognized text among the Jews and a commonplace of the earliest Christian preachers. And this same remark applies to the text of vs. 52. The fact is that Justin Dial. 16 is much nearer to this passage, yet S.R. doesn’t even give it a place among the ‘more distant analogies.’

He further points to the speech of St. Paul at Antioch, the opening address with the mention of the choice of the Fathers, the sojourn in Egypt, the driving out of the Canaanites, the raising up of David—Acts 18:17-19. Response—This is all the similarity there is even though St. Stephen’s speech occupies 52 verses, whereas St. Paul’s 25-26 verses. Do these resemblances really need any explanation? If anything, the similarities are rather less than one might have expected. Stephen preached to Jews (cf. Paul at Antioch), but take Paul’s speech at the Areopagus or to the Ephesian elders at Miletus, and things appear in a different light. When the speakers are in the same position, addressing the same audience, on the same topics, coincidences are to be expected. When addressing Jews appeals [are made] to their past history, to the past glories of the race (cf. Ps 44:1; 78; 89; 105; 106; 114; 135). We may compare similar appeals to past history, past glories in speeches to Athenians, for example before the battle of Salamis.

(10) But the Author’s Chief Argument has to do with the Language. On this score he goes into an elaborate analysis (pp. 164ff.). The point of it is that the speech betrays all the peculiarities of Luke’s diction, and that therefore it was not taken from some previous report, but rather composed and inserted by the author (see especially p. 177). Response—Now it does not appear to have occurred to this author to ask himself one preliminary question—Is it not possible that the speech, in the main, is the speech of St. Stephen, and yet still here and there the author (St. Luke) put together the rough report so that some indications of his own diction should appear? Is this not only possible, but even probable? At least when he only half asks the question and then turns away from answering it? (p. 177) The fact is lost on him that a detailed accurate report of a long speech is not to be looked for, is improbable. Not only are [his accounts of things] purely arbitrary, and incapable of proof, they are opposed to the facts of the case. In regard especially to the facts of the case [when we are dealing with facts] they have coincidences [with other facts] and they shall coincide.

Detailed attention to the speech brings even more to light, for example the speech’s deep indebtedness to the lxx in places. For example consider the quote of Ex 2:14 or the use of Ex 3:3. Or in Acts 7:40 the use of Ex 32:1 and the quote from Amos 5:26. εἰσάγειν is the common word in the lxx for bringing into the promised land. In this one section of the speech we have twenty words from direct quotation, four more from the larger OT context. Out of a total of 83 words here, only 37 are not accounted for as coming from the lxx citation or paraphrase. Close scrutiny of the linguistic usage in Acts 7 here shows: 1) deep indebtedness to the OT, particularly the lxx, though there is a freedom to paraphrase or even use some words in a different way, and 2) no real possibility that it was constructed out of Pauline snippets here and there, contra S.R. So for instance . . . as to words used in a different way: 1) βήμα already cited, always elsewhere ‘tribunal’; 2) ἐκτιθέναι ‘to expose’ of children comp. Ex 18:5 but elsewhere ἐκτιθέναι to expose but ἐκτίθεσθαι ‘to expand’ Acts 11:4; 18:26; 28:23; 2) words not used for any special purposes in the Acts compared to the other parts of the NT. e.g. Paul’s epistles, where we could come up with 86 words just from the four capital Paulines, and 139 from the whole. Of the total of 156 words in the Stephen speech, only four are really used in ways in Paul that comport with their use here, though there are broader parallels: Here are a few examples: a) δυνατóς appears in Acts but is more common in Paul; b) ἀπωθεῖν much more common in St. Paul; c) εὐφραίνειν only Acts 2:26 from the lxx, only six times in St. Luke’s Gospel (four in the prodigal son story), three times in St. Paul, three times in Revelation, but 220 times in the lxx; d) ἐξαποστέλλειν used some six times in Acts (one in St. Paul’s speech), three times in Luke’s Gospel, nine in St. Paul (Gal 4:4, 6) but some 250 times in the lxx, often used of the journeys to and from Egypt (Gen 44:3; 45:24); e) βρέφος, not used at all elsewhere in Acts, five times in Luke (mostly of our Lord’s infancy), 2 Tim 3:15; 1 Pet 2:2; f) if we turn to phrases like ‘the most high’ (ὁ ὑψίστος) in the absolute Luke 1:32, 35, 76; 6:35, four times in Acts, or ‘God most high’ (ὁ θεός ὁ ὑψίστος Acts 16:17; Mark 5:7; Heb 7:1) this phrase occurs 23 times in the Psalms alone, always with the phrase ‘most high’ applied to the Biblical God, except once, and 14 times (counting vocatives) in the absolute. When one surveys the parallels to every single word in the Stephen speech, it is a remarkable list. Not a single word which is not a common word, and not a single word unique to this speech and St. Luke’s writings. Of S.R’s. list of forty five words which betray the hand of St. Luke (pp. 172sq.), eleven are not in this speech at all, of the other thirty four, most can clearly be accounted for out of the lxx (see the parallels in vss. 7-42), or as common words in Greek, including in the Greek New Testament. But what about Luke’s use of ἀνήρ, at the beginning of speeches, here and at Acts 22:1 in this particular manner (addressed to the same audience)? In Acts 11:32 and Acts 17:22 we also have the use of ἀνήρ but with the ethnic extraction of the audience. The fact is we have nothing to compare these examples to in the Gospels or in the Epistles because there are no set addresses there. But this may be based on a Hebraism (see Gen 13:8).

In sum, the arguments against the genuineness of the speech entirely failed. Are there any arguments in its favor? The strongest. Firstly, there is the strong presumption from the known character of the author. There is his approach in the Gospel [to his source material], which we can test. Does his account turn from being a narration of facts which actually occurred and words which were actually spoken suddenly to becoming a narration of lies?

S.R. presents us with the old dilemma—‘He [Luke] has an uncritical eye, and the Christian circle was an especially uncritical circle. They would receive or believe anything.’ This argument is urged by no one more strongly than the author of Supernatural Religion. Now this statement is exaggerated, but there is a substantial amount of truth at the bottom of it. But what then? This is a double-edged weapon and the other edge is quite as keen, perhaps even keener than the one S.R. wields. The age which is too uncritical to detect [fraud] is a fortiori too uncritical to insert any narrative, more especially, any long and varied narrative (like the Acts of the Apostles), that might bear any slight resemblance to verisimilitude. As for the Acts of the Apostles, there is no book in the New Testament like it, and hardly any contemporary book like it. The various localities, the various persons (Jewish, Christian, heathen), the multitude of occurrences—we have geography, history, archaeology (Jewish, Christian, Greek, Roman) and yet how readily in keeping with these settings and persons—Athens—we see Athenian life as it was, Ephesus—Ephesian ideas and customs abound, Jerusalem—everything in keeping.

Or look at it from another point of view—not from its relationship to external facts but as to its internal character: 1) half-telling an incident or speech; 2) the list of names (e.g. of deacons) is incomplete; 3) the growth and change reported and seen in the narrative. Consider the authenticity of the Semitic character of the early part of the narrative, the freedom and expansion of the later parts when the Gospel enters into the world of Greece. Or consider these very speeches in Acts—the similarity of speeches spoken under similar circumstances is an argument in favor of their genuineness, if (but not otherwise) the speeches spoken under different circumstances differ. And this is the case.

Consider the speech to the Ephesian elders, replete with Pauline expressions and turns of thought, or take the speech at the Areopagus and the very presence of a philosophical audience. While there is similarity in the speeches there is also dissimilarity—the Pauline ideas only show up first in a Pauline speech (13:38-39). There is nothing like this in the earlier speeches in Acts.

In fact S.R. comes up with a totally impossible character for the writer of Acts. At one moment he is the stupidest of the stupid. At the next moment he is Shakespeare and a Mommsen in one. If he made St. Peter, and St. Stephen, and St. Paul at Antioch refer to the same topics because he had not wits enough to vary the speeches, he must be considered to be the acme of stupidity. And yet this is the same man who presents us with the speech of this same Paul at Miletus and the believably authentic report of his sojourn in Ephesus. We are presented with an utter improbability—that Luke had a worse critical eye than we find in The Clementine Homilies, the Apocryphal Gospels, and the Greek Romances.

Now to turn to the speech in itself, I say it never could have been created by a fraud. It could not because: 1) it serves no purpose! There is no doctrine (Petrine or Pauline) enunciated, there is no aim served, and it is, in places, unintelligible, such that critics in this century are debating eagerly what it means. It serves no literary purpose either, it is incongruous and out of place. Least of all would it have served any purpose in the second century (the supposed time when S.R. suggests it was composed—comp. p. 159), as it makes no appeal to any subject that would have interested [the church then]. It is one thing to point to the arguments in the speech [as a sign of invention] but not to the contradictions. Take for instance the reference to the burial of the patriarchs in vs. 15 or the quote from Amos in vs. 43. There is a stubborn residuum in this speech that will not allow the explanation on these grounds, this theory of free composition. 2) It would not. This sort of speech could have only arisen out of the circumstances of the case. A close examination shows that while the incidences in the speech are applicable to the situation, yet they are never applied. The purport then is buried deep below the surface. It has to be unearthed by the careful examination of criticism. The fact is, that the speech is hurried towards the end. There are signs of a brewing tumult. The systematic application is never made, but indignant remonstrance takes its place, yet there is no explanation of all this. The consequent result of this is the apparent purpose is left in the dark. Certainly invention never indulges in such vagary. If this is artifice, it is the most consummate artifice. But supposing it is an actual speech then everything is explained, more specifically the errors in the speech. They could arise out of the haste of speaking or more likely the haste of the report. Errors crop up in part due to compression. I close with an example of what the full evidence looks like before compression.

In regard to the error about the burial of the patriarchs, the facts in the Old Testament are these: 1) Abraham purchased Machpelah—Gen 23:8 sq.; 2) Jacob purchased a field at Schechem from the children of Hamor, the father of Schechem Gen 33:19; 3) Jacob was buried at Machpelah where Abraham and Isaac lay Gen 47:30; 49:30 sq.; 4) Joseph was buried at Schechem Ex 13:19; Gen 1:26; Josh 24:32. 5) of the burial of Joseph’s brothers nothing is said in the Old Testament. Note that compression of multiple pieces of data seems to have happened in the report of the call of Abraham as well.

It seems to have been a formal belief of the Jews that the bodies were brought up from Egypt, see Josephus Ant. ii.8.2 i.e. that their bodies were transferred to Palestine while their children were still living, and long before the Exodus. Though the tradition is worth very little as historical evidence, yet it is far from improbable in itself. The body of Joseph would be kept back, as he was an Egyptian prince. See Bell. Jud. iv.9.7, on this account of the patriarchs, the Egyptians had no claims. If they were relocated then, there bodies would most naturally be buried at Hebron in the hereditary sanctuary where Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah lay. On the other hand some rabbinical writers speak as though they were translated at the Exodus. In this case, they would have naturally been buried at Schechem for the same reason for which Joseph was buried there. It was the ‘first fruit’ of the conquest as the Israelites emerged from the desert. Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine, p. 233. See Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers II, p. 668.

↑ Back to top