Two instances of stoning call for special considera- tion— that of the proto-martyr Stejilien (Ac "i^^-^")^ and that of St. Paul at Lystra (14>»f-).
1. The stoning of Stephen. — In connexion with the stoning of the lirst Christian martyr, a much- debated question is whether it was (a) tumultuary, {b) legal, or (c) a blending of both.
(a) Baur maintains that the whole proceedings from first to last were tumultuary. Stephen was simply done to death by a fanatical mob without even the pretence of a hearing, and the idea of a trial before the Sanhedrin, followed by a regular Jewish stoning, must be sumniarilydismissed {Paul: his Life and Works, Eng. tr., 2 vols., London, 1873- 75,i.56). Modern criticism, followingsuit, rulesout the references to the Sanhedrin in Ac 6'"- '", on the ground that they are editorial additions, or belong to an inferior source, and were introduced for the purpose of making out that a trial took place before that body. ' Stejihen's arrest,' says MoH'att, ' was the result of a jiopular (iiicutc, which restrained itself just long enough to allow him to defend him- self before a suspicious and exasperated audience, which numbered — perhaps unothcially — several members of the .Sanhedrin ' (art. ' Stephen ' in KBi iv. 478i(). 'It is plain,' he adds, 'that Stephen VOL. II. — 34
died, not on the testimony of witnes-ses (6" 7"''), but on account of lii.n own recent word and con- fession ' (i'6. 47114). But, if the occasion which led to Stejihen's being jmt on his defence was the accusation of blas|diuiiiy brought against him by the witnesses (and the stalemeiit of 0'^ can hardly Ije challenged), it is dillicult to conceive of a selt- constituted tribunal attempting lo adjuilicate upon a grave charge of the sort, involving the penalty of death, with which the supreme court of justice alone among the Jews had authority to deal. The presence of the witnesses from liist to Inst (6" 7°' ; cf. 22-'") affords a strong presumption that the case was tried before the Sanhedrin, and that the iiiar- tvidom was not the result siiiiidy of foul play on tlie part of an excited mob who liad lost all control of themselves.
(b) The view that the proceedings were quite regular and orderly throughout has also ueen advocated. 'Stephen was formally accused and brought to trial before the SaTiliedrim ; it is prob- able that he was formally condemned by that b<jdy, and that his death was not the result of a mere tumult, as the account of Luke might seem to imjily. This probability is strengthened by the fact that his death was by the le^al mode prescribed for the crime of blasphemy, and that the stoning was done not by the crowd in general, but bv' Stephen's accusers in the orderlj- Jewish way'(A. C. McGiti'ert, A Histori/ of Christianity in tlie Apostolic Age, Edin- burgh, 1897, p. 90). There is no reason to suppose, however, that the historian of the Acts sought to aggravate the crime of Stephen's death by leaving the impression that it was the result of a popular tumult rather than of a fair tri.-il conducted to an orderly conclusion. Some of the formalities, more- over, in connexion with legal stoning, were neces- sarily dispensed with. If the accused was con- demned on his own confession, further evidence to attest his innocence would not be admissible.
(c) There is no reason to question the reality of the scene depicted in the narrative, in which, after the utterance that excited the furj- of the hearers (' Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right band of God '), the court was at once transformed into an infuriated mob, and hurried the alleged blasphemer, now judged out of his own mouth, without further ceremony to the place of execution (7"'0- As regards the sub- sequent stoning, the narrative places it bej'ond doubt that the witnesses were present (7" ; cf. 22-"), and discharged the functions customary on such an occasion. F. C. Conybeare suggests (Exp, 8tli ser., vi. [1913] 466) that ' it was Stephen's gar- ments which were ceremonially laid at the feet of Paul ' (by the witnesses [p. 469]), ' and that the true reading in ver. 58 is ai'Tod, and not aurwK.' But the feelings of horror with which St. Paul recalled the scene in later j-ears were due to the fact that he kept, not the raiment of Stephen (although his may also have been there), but ' the raiment of them that slew him' (22™). It is probable that the Apostle was present, not as a mere inactive spectator, but in an official capacity, perhaps that of herald, as Conybeare suggests (op. cit., p. 468). If not the prime mover in bringing about the mar- tyrdom, he was undoubtedly one of the active spirits participating in it, and it was not at hap- hazard that the witnesses laid down their clothes at his feet. Some siiecial si^'uilicance attaches to the circumstance, although it hardly justifies the assumption that he was a member of the Sanhedrin at the time.
2. The stoning of St. Paul at Lystra.— In the catalogue of hardships and sufferings endured by the Apostle in the course of his missionary labours and journeys, he mentions the fact that in one instance he was stoned (2 Co U^). This is prob-