word in it which can be legitimately construed into an attack upon the Mosaic law, or which anticipates the Christian universalism of Paul. Space, however, forbids our entering here upon a discussion of this subject, but the course which we must adopt with regard to it renders it unnecessary to deal with the interpretation of the speech. We consider that there is no reason for believing that the discourse put into the mouth of Stephen was ever actually delivered, but on the contraiy that there is every ground for holding that it is nothing more than a composition by the Author of the Acts. We shall endeavour clearly to state the reasons for this conclusion.
With the exception of the narrative in the Acts, there is no evidence whatever that such a person as Stephen ever existed. The statements of the Apostle Paul leave no doubt that persecution against the Christians of Jerusalem must have broken out previous to his conversion, but no details are given, and it can scarcely be considered otherwise than extraordinary, that Paul should not in any of his own writings have referred to the proto-martyr of the Christian Church, if the account which is given of him be historical. It may be argued that his own share in the martyrdom of Stephen made the episode an unpleasant memory, which the Apostle would not readily recall. Considering the generosity of Paul's character on the one hand, however, and the important position assigned to Stephen on the other, this cannot be admitted as an explanation, and it is perfectly unaccountable that, if Stephen really be a historical personage, no mention of him occurs elsewhere in the New Testament.
Moreover, if Stephen was, as asserted, the direct forerunner of Paul, and in his hearing enunciated
sentiments like those ascribed to him, already expressing much more than the germ—indeed the full spirit—of Pauline universality, it would be passing strange that Paul not only tacitly ignores all that he owes to the proto-martyr, but vehemently protests: "But I make known unto you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached by me is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ."(1) There is no evidence whatever that such a person exercised any such influence on Paul.(2) One thing only is certain, that the speech and martyrdom of Stephen made so little impression on Paul that, according to Acts, he continued a bitter persecutor of Christianity, "making havoc of the Church."
The statement, vi. 8, that "Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people" is not calculated to increase confidence in the narrative as sober history; and as little is the assertion, vi. 15, that "all who sat in the Council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel." This, we think, is evidently an instance of Christian subjective opinion made objective.(3) How, we might ask, could it be known to the writer that all who sat at the Council saw this? Neander replies that probably it is the evidence of members of the Sanhedrin of the impression made on them by the aspect of Stephen.(4) The intention of the writer, however, obviously is to describe a supernatural
3 It is further very remarkable, if it be assumed that the
vision, Acts vii. 55, actually was seen, that, in giving a
list of those who have seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor. xv. 5—
8), which he evidently intends to be complete, he does not
include Stephen.
phenomenon,(1) and this is in his usual manner in this book, where miraculous agency is more freely employed than in any other in the Canon. The session of the Council commences in a regular manner,(2) but the previous arrest of Stephen,(3) and the subsequent interruption of his defence, are described as a tumultuous proceeding, his death being. unsanctioned by any sentence of the Council.(4) The Sanhed-rin, indeed, could not execute any sentence of death without the ratification of the Roman authorities,(5) and nothing is said in the narrative which implies that any regular verdict was pronounced; but, on the contrary, the tumult described in v. 57 f. excludes such a supposition. Olshausen(6) considers that, in order to avoid any collision with the Roman power, the Sanhedrin did not pronounce any formal judgment, but connived at the execution which some fanatics carried out. This explanation, however, is inadmissible, because it is clear that the members of the Council themselves, if also the audience,
