The vividness of the narrative hardly leaves room for tiie Bupposition that tlie stoninjj of Stephen was a lef,'al execution, i,e. one carried out with tlie sanction of the Roman authorities, or, indeed, that it was other than a murder. But the Sanhe- diin may have been able to represent the whole incident as a mere tvunultuous outbreak, for which they could not officially be called to account
A few other minor points require notice: (1) As to the number of synagogues implied in 6^, whether five, or three, or two, or only one (each number has hud its advocate amonf^ expositors), the Greek seems to support the view of VVendt, viz. that two 8ynaf;o;rues are meant : (a) of the Libertines (Cyrenians and Alexandrians), and (6) of those from Asia and Cilicia. See LiuKKTlNES; Sanday. Expovitftr, viiL p. 827 (third series): also Winer-Moulton, Gvammar, \\ 160 note. (2) The date of Ihc martyrdom of Stephen can be determined only approximately : Bengel ^ves A. D. ao, Kwald A. D. 38, and ever>' intervening: year has had its supporter. Acts seems to place the event shortly before St. Paul's conversion ; certainly nearer to that event than to the terminus a quo, the Crucifixion (say 20-30). Recent chronolo;;ists have somewhat narrowed the tennini of St. Pauls conversion : von Soden 31-35, Harnack 80, Ramsav .'l;l ; see OuRO.voLoaT Of NT, viL L p. 424 (C) and Table. (3) Who are
the persons covered by the term 'devout men,' iv*,oii tl\tSiA (s-)'.' Hardly proselytes (Renan, Apostlrs, viii.) of either class, as St. Luke regularly uses wpoiriiXvroi and ^oM-^ui^o: (or vi^ou.imi,<\ T«» Hio¥ for proselytes of the higher and the lower ran respec- tively, and elsewhere applies liXuSiCi to Jews (Lk 225, Ac 2^ 22'* RV), It is also unlikely that they were Christians, else we >hould have expected the designation to be ,tMt'/r;Ta. or aiikcoi. Jlost probably they were Jews who took a sympathetic interest in the fortunes of the Church, and who may have known and respected Stephen. Cf. Joseph of Arimatha^a and Nicodcn ua (Jn 19 "*■ 39), and see KnowUng in Expositor's Greek Testtk- vxent, ii., ad loc. (4) Traditions about Stephen. According to an early tradition, the scene of the martyrdom was the open ground outside the Damascus Gate on the north ; but about the 15th cent, this gave place to the popular belief that it was on the east, where, accordingly, St. Stephen's Gate is now located (see Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, sniall ed. p. 61). Another legend relates that, through the friendliness of Gamaliel, the body of Stephen was buried at Kafr Gamala, a day'e journey from Jerusalem, all the apostles being present. This story
{>robably origin.ated after the so-called * Invention and Trans- ation of the Relics of St. Stephen,' the chief details of which are that in the year 415 Gamaliel appeared in vision to Lucian, parish priest of Kafr Gamala, and indicated the resting-place of the remains of Stephen, which were then disinterred, carried to Jerusalem, and buried in the church of Mount Zion ; it was also said that the exhumation disclosed a tablet bearing the Aramaic name of Stephen, Kel'U (Syr. kelila, ' crown ' = rTt^a:»«).
The Speech of Stephen. — The historical narrative given by Stephen shows a considerable number of divergences from the OT account ; e.g. according to Ac 7-"* Abraham receives his call before his migration to Haran, in Gn 12' while in Haran ; the giving of the Law is connected with angels in Ac 7*', while Ex 19 has no mention of angels. ' Remphan ' in 7'" sliows that Stephen was quoting from the LXX ; the Hebrew has ' Chiun ' (Am 5-^) ; see Chiun. A full list of these variations is given by Farrar, St. Paul, small ed. p. 92 note.
The authenticity of the speech has been much canvassed ; e.g. Weizsiicker (and he is representa- tive of many more) regards the speech as a 'doctrinal exposition,' i.e. a later composition ; but see Acts, vol. i. p. 33 f . There has been an almost equal diversity of opinion regarding the purpose of the address. Now, this very diversity seems a remarkably convincing proof of its substantial historicity ; a mere fabricator would surely have taken care to leave his readers in little doubt as to his 'tendency.' Was the speech completed? Was it intended as an answer to the charges made by the false witnesses? Or was it meant as a vindication, in whole or in part, of the opinions by which Stephen had originally provoked opposi- tion? As to the first of these (juestions, it may be said that the speech has all the appearance of being complete ; the fact that Stephen did not proceed to recount the nation's story beyond the building of Solomon's temple is sufficiently ex- ]ilaincd if we remember that the legal and institu- tional status quo was traditionally held to have been but little altered subsequent to that event. As to the second, it is certainly difficult to main- tain that the address is a counter-plea to the very dehnite charges of 6"-". It remains, then, to seek an answer to the question whether the speech was, .so to speak, a ple.a of Veritas, i.e. a re-declara- tion of what Stephen had .said against the Temple and the Law. If we answer affirmatively, the climax will be found in vv.-**-'", where it seems to be suggested that the building of the Temple w.os an act contrary to God's will, a continuation of the contumacy that hiid fashioned the golden calf, and taken up the tabernacle of Molech (yv.'"""); while, if we answer negatively, the essential point will lie in vv."", where Stephen declares that (not he and his brethren, but) his hearers ami judges were the real violators of God's commands. The former view is usually adopted by those who regard Stephen as the hrst to discern that the gospel could not be confined within the bonds of .ludaism, as, in fact, the forerunner of St. Paul. But it should be ob.served that if Stephen had spoken (as ihe false -n-itnesses said) a ainst tie