1. History. — 1. Early Notices. — It appears from Ste- phen's name that he was a Hellenist, as it was not com- mon for the Jews of Palestine to adopt names for their children except from the Hebrew or Syriac; though of what country he was is unknown. His Hebrew (or rather Sj'riac) name is traditionally (Basil of Seleucia, Orat. de S. Stephano. See Gesenius in voce 333) said to have been Chelil, or Cheliel (a crown). He is repre- sented by Epiphanius (xl, 50) as one of the seventj' disciples chosen by Christ; but this statement is with- out authority from Scripture, and is, in fact, inconsist- ent with what is there mentioned concerning him. He is spoken of by others as one of the first converts of Peter on the day of Pentecost; but this also is merely conjectural. Jerome {On Isu. xlvi, 12) and others of the fathers praise him as a man of great learning and eloquence.
2. /lis Official Position. — The first authentic notice ■we find of him is in Acts vi, 5. In the distribution of the common fund that was intrusted to the apostles (Acts vi, 35-37) for the support of the poorer brethren (see Mosheim, De Rebus Christ, ante Con.<if. p. 118, and Dissert, ad Hist. Eccles. Pertiii.), the Hellenistic Jews complained that a partiality was shown to the natives of Palestine, and that the poor and sick among their ■widows were neglected. Wlicther we conceive with Mosheim (De Rebus, etc. p. 118) that the distribution ■was made bj' individuals set apart for that office, though not yet possessing the name of deacons; or, with the ■writer in the Encyclopwdin .\[i^lrop<dit(iua (art. " Kcele- siastical History;" see also archbishop Whately's Kiwj- dom of Christ), we conclude that witli the (tlHce they liad also the name, but were limited to Hebrews; or whether we follow the more common view as set forth by Bohmer {Diss, vii; .Juris Eccles. Ant iq.), does not materially affect the present subject. The complaint of the Hellenists having reached the ears of the apos- tles, immediate directions were given by them with a view to removing the cause of it. Unwilling themselves
IX.— S s s
to be called away from their proper employment of ex- tending the bounds of the Christian community, they told the assembled multitude of believers to select sev- en men of their own number, in whose faith and integ- rity they might repose entire confidence, for the super- intendence of everything connected with the relief of the poor. The proposal of tlie apostles met with the ap- probation of the brethren, who proceeded at once with the choice of the ])rescribed number of individuals, among whom Stephen is first mentioned; hence the title of first deacon, or first of the deacons, is given to him by Ireiueus (Iren. i, 12). He is distinguished in Scripture as a man "full of faith and of the Holy Ghost" (Acts vi, 5). The newly elected individuals ' were brought to the apostles, who ordained them to their office, and they entered upon their duties with ex- traordinary zeal and success. The number of the dis- ciples was greatly increased, and many priests were among the converts. In this work Stephen greatly distinguished himself by the miracles he performed be- fore the people and by the arguments he advanced in support of the Christian cause. From his foreign de- scent and education, he was naturally led to address himself to the Hellenists; and in his disputations with Jews of the Synagogue of the Libertines and Cyreni- ans, etc. [see Synagogue; Liuehtine], he brought for- ward views of the Christian scheme that could not be relished by the bigots of the ancient faith.
3. The Accusation. — Down to this time the apostles and the earh' Christian community had clung in their worship, not merely to the Holy Laiul and the Holy City, but to the holy place of the Temple. This local worship, with the Jewish customs belonging to it, Stephen now seems to have denounced. The actual words of the charge brought against him may have been false, as the sinister and malignant intention which they as- cribed to him was undoubtedly false. " Blasphemous" (/3\rt(T0)jju«), that is, c<dumnious, "words against Mo- ses and against God" (Acts vi, 11) he is not likely to have used. But the overthrow of the Temple, the ces- sation of the Mosaic ritual, is no more than Paul preach- ed openly, or than is implied in Stephen's own speech, " against this holy place and the law" — " that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs that Moses delivered us" (ver. 13, 14).
Benson {flistory of the First Plantiny of the Christian Reliyion) and others have considered the testimony of the witnesses against Stephen as in every respect false, and that we are not even to suppose that he had stated that Christ would change the customs which IMoses de- livered (Acts vi, 14), upon the ground of the improbabil- ity of more being revealed to Stephen than to the apos- tles, as to the abolition of the Levitical ceremonies. From the strain of the martyr's speech, however, a dif- ferent conclusion may be drawn. His words imply, in various passages, that external rites were not essential, and that true religion was not confined to the Temple service (vii, «, 3«, 44, etc.). There seems much plausi- bility in the conjecture of Neander (Plantiny and Train- ing of the Christian ^/»/?-cA, translated by By land, i, 56 sq.) that Stephen and the other deacons, from their birth and education, were less under the iuHuence of Jewish prejudices than the natives of Palestine, and may thus liave been prc|)areil t<) precede the apostles themselves in ap()reheiidiiig the liberty which the Gospel was to introduce. The statements of Stephen correspond in more than one particular with what was afterwards taught by Paul.