himself as ἀφωρισμένος in a far higher and fuller sense, Rom. i. 1, Gal. i. 15 (Zahn, u. 5., p. 48); as a Pharisee he was ‘‘separated from all filthiness of heathenism ”’ around (Nivdal), but he was to learn that the Christian life was that of the true “ Chasid,”’ and that in contrast to all Pharisaic legalism and externalism there was a cleansing ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, a per- fecting holiness in the fear of God—God Who chooseth {before all temples the upright heart and ‘pure - (Edersheim, Fewish Social Life, p. 231). On the question whether St. Paul ever saw our Lord in the flesh, see Keim, Geschichte Fesu, i., 35, 36, and references, and for the views of more recent writers, Wztness of the Epistles (Longmans), chaps. i. and ii.
Ver. 59. καὶ ἐλιθ. τὸν Σ. ἐπικ.: im- perf., as in νετ. 58, “' quia res morte de- mum [6ο] perficitur,” Blass. ἐπικ., pre- sent participle, denoting, it would seem, the continuous appeal of the martyr to his:Lord. Zeller, Overbeck and Baur throw doubt upon the historical truth of the narrative on account of the manner in which the Sanhedrists’ action is divided between an utter absence of formal proceedings and α punctilious observance of correct formalities; but on the other hand Wendt, note, p. 195 (1888), points out with much force that an excited and tumultuous crowd, even in the midst of a high-handed and illegal act, might observe some legal forms, and the description given by St. Luke, so far from proceeding from one who through ignorance was upable to dis- tinguish between a legal execution and a massacre, impresses us rather with a sense of truthfulness from the very fact that no attempt is made to draw such a distinc- tion of nicely balanced justice, less or more. The real difficulty lies in the relations which the scene presupposes between the Roman Government and the Sanhedrim. No doubt at this period the latter did not possess the power to inflict capital punishment (Schirer, Fewish People, div. ii., vol. i., p. 187, E.T.), as is evident from the trial of our Lord. But it may well be that at the timé of Stephen’s murder Roman authority was.
58.
somewhat relaxed in Judea. Pilate had just been suspended from his functions, or was on the point of being so, and he may well have been tired of refusing the madness and violence of the Jews, as Renan supposes, or at all events he may well have refrained, owing to his bad odour with them, from calling them to account for their illegal action in the case before us (see McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 91). It is of course possible that the stoning took place with the con- nivance of the Jewish authorities, as Weizsacker allows, or that there was an interval longer than Acts supposes be- tween the trial of Stephen and his actual execution, during which the sanction of the Romans was obtained. In the absence of exact dates it is difficult to see why the events before us should not have been transacted during the inter- regnum between the departure of Pontius Pilate, to answer before Tiberius for his misgovernment, and the arrival of Mar- cellus, the next Procurator. If this was so, we have an exact historical parallel in the illegal murder of James the Just, who was tried before the high priest, and stoned to death, since Ananias thought that he had a good opportunity for his violence when Festus was dead, and Albinus was still upon his road (Jos., Ant., xx., 9,1). But if this suggestion of an interregnum is not free from diffi- culties, we may further take into con- sideration the fact that the same Roman officer, Vitellius, prefect of Syria, who had caused Pilate to be sent to Rome in disgrace, was anxious at the same time to receive Jewish support, and determined to effect his object by every means in his power. Josephus, Ant., Xvili., 4, 2-5, tells us that Vitellius sent a friend of his own, Marcellus, to manage the affairs of Judza, and that, not content with this, he went up to Jerusalem himself to conciliate the Jews by open regard for their religion, as well as by the remission of taxation. It is therefore not difficult to conceive that both the murder of Stephen and the per- secution which followed were connived at by the Roman government; see, in addition to the above references, Rendall’s Acts, Introd., p. 19 ff.; Farrar, St. Paul, i., p. 648 ff., and note, p. 649. But this solution of the difficulty places the date of Saul’s conversion somewhat late—a.p. 37—and is entirely at variance with the earlier chronology adopted not only by Harnack (so too by McGiffert), but here by Ramsay, St. Paul, 376, 377, who places St. Stephen’s martyrdom in Α.Ρ. 33 at