Supernatural Religion Volume III Part 9

irritation the efforts made by the community of Jerusalem, whose "pillars" were Peter, James, and John, to force t.i.tus, a Gentile Christian, to be circ.u.mcised,(1) and even the Acts represent James and all the elders of the Church of Jerusalem as requesting Paul, long after, to take part with four Jewish Christians, who had a vow and were about to purify themselves and shave their heads and, after the accomplishment of the days of purification, make the usual offering in the Temple, in order to convince the "many thousands there of those who have believed and are all zealous for the law," that it is untrue that he teaches: "all the Jews who are among the Gentiles apostacy [------]

from Moses, saying that they ought not to circ.u.mcise their children, neither to walk after the customs," and to show, on the contrary, that he himself walks orderly and keeps the Law.(2) As true Israelites, with opinions fundamentally unchanged by belief that Jesus was the Messiah, they held that the Gospel was specially intended for the people of the Covenant, and they confined their teaching to the Jews.(3) A Gentile whilst still uncirc.u.mcised, even although converted, could not, they thought, be received on an

1 Gal ii. 3 ff. As we shall more fully discuss this episode hereafter, it is not necessary to do so here.

2 Acts xxi. 18--26; cf. xv. i. Paul is also represented as saying to the Jews of Rome that he has done nothing"

against the customs of their Fathers."

3 Dr. Lightfoot says: "Meanwhile at Jerusalem some years past away before the barrier of Judaism was a.s.sailed. The Apostles still observed the Mosaic ritual; they still confined their preaching to Jews by birth, or Jews by adoption, the proselytes of the Covenant," &c. Paul's Ep. to Gal. p. 287. Paley says: "It was not yet known to the Apostles, that they were at liberty to propose the religion to mankind at large. That 'mystery,' as St. Paul calls it (Eph. iii. 3-6), and as it then was, was revealed to Peter by an especial miracle." A view of the Evidence, &c, ed.

Potts, 1850, p. 228.

{143}

equality with the Jew, but defiled him by contact.(1) The att.i.tude of the Christian Jew to the merely Christian Gentile, who had not entered the community by the portal of Judaism, was, as before, simply that of the Jew to the proselyte of the Gate. The Apostles could not upon any other terms have then even contemplated the conversion of the Gentiles.

Jesus had limited his own teaching to the Jews, and, according to the first Gospel, had positively prohibited, at one time at least, their going to the Gentiles, or even to the Samaritans, and if there had been an order given to preach to all nations it certainly was not accompanied by any removal of the conditions specified in the Law.(2) It has been remarked that neither party, in the great discussion in the Church regarding the terms upon which Gentiles might be admitted to the privileges of Christianity, ever appealed in support of their views to specific instructions of Jesus on the subject.(3) The reason is intelligible enough. The Petrine party, supported as they were by the whole weight of the Law and of Holy Scripture, as well as by the example and tacit approval of the Master, could not have felt even that degree of doubt which precedes an appeal to authority.

2 Dr. Lightfoot says: "The Master himself had left no express instructions. He had charged them, it is true, to preach the Gospel to all nations, but how this injunction was to be carried out, by what changes a national Church must expand into an universal Church, they had not been told. He had indeed a.s.serted the sovereignty of the spirit over the letter; he had enunciated the great principle--as wide in its application as the law itself--that' man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man.' He had pointed to the fulfilment of the law in the Gospel. So fer he had discredited the law, but he had not deposed it or abolished it. It was left to the Apostles themselves under the guidance of the Spirit, moulded by circ.u.mstances and moulding them in turn, to work out the great change." St.

Paul's Ep. to Gal. 286.

{144}

The party of Paul, on the other hand, had nothing in their favour to which a specific appeal could have been made; but in his constant protest that he had not received his doctrine from man, but had been taught it by direct revelation, the Apostle of the Gentiles, who was the first to proclaim a substantial difference between Christianity and Judaism,(1) in reality endeavoured to set aside the authority of the Judaistic party by an appeal from the earthly to the spiritualized Messiah. Even after the visit of Paul to Jerusalem about the year 50, the elder Apostles still retained the views which we have shown to have been inevitable under the circ.u.mstances, and, as we learn from Paul himself, they still continued mere "Apostles of the Circ.u.mcision,"

limiting their mission to the Jews.(2)

The Apostles and the primitive Christians, therefore, after the death of their Master, whom they believed to be the Messiah of the Jews, having received his last instructions, and formed their final impressions of his views, remained Jews, believing in the continued obligation to observe the Law and, consequently, holding the initiatory rite essential to partic.i.p.ation in the privileges of the Covenant. They held this not only as Jews believing in the Divine origin of the Old Testament and of the Law, but as Christians confirmed by the example and the teaching of their Christ, whose very coming was a substantial ratification of the ancient faith of Israel. In this position they stood when the

{145}

Gospel, without their intervention, and mainly by the exertions of the Apostle Paul, began to spread amongst the Gentiles, and the terms of their admission came into question. It is impossible to deny that the total removal of conditions, advocated by the Apostle Paul with all the vehemence and warmth of his energetic character, and involving nothing short of the abrogation of the Law and surrender of all the privileges of Israel, must have been shocking not only to the prejudices but also to the deepest religious convictions of men who, although Christians, had not ceased to be Jews, and, unlike the Apostle of the Gentiles, had been directly and daily in contact with Jesus, without having been taught such revolutionary principles. From this point we have to proceed with our examination of the account in the Acts of the relation of the elder Apostles to Paul, and the solution of the difficult problem before them.

CHAPTER V. STEPHEN THE MARTYR

Before the Apostle of the Gentiles himself comes on the scene, and is directly brought in contact with the Twelve, we have to study the earlier incidents narrated in the Acts, wherein, it is said, the emanc.i.p.ation of the Church from Jewish exclusiveness had already either commenced or been clearly antic.i.p.ated. The first of these which demands our attention is the narrative of the martyrdom of Stephen. This episode, although highly interesting and important in itself, might, we consider, have been left unnoticed in connection with the special point now engaging our attention, but such significance has been imparted to it by the views which critics have discovered in the speech of Stephen, that we cannot pa.s.s it without attention. If this detention be, on the one hand, to be regretted, it will on the other be compensated by the light which may be thrown on the composition of the Acts.

We read(l) that in consequence of murmurs amongst the h.e.l.lenists against the Hebrews, that their widows were neglected in the daily distribution of alms, seven deacons were appointed specially to attend to such ministrations. Amongst these, it is said, was Stephen,(2)

{147}

"a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit." Stephen, it appears, by no means limited his attention to the material interests of the members of the Church, but being "full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs [------] amongst the people." "But there arose certain of those of the synagogue which is called (the synagogue) of the Libertines(1) and Cyrenians and Alexandrians and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen; and they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. Then they suborned men who said: We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and G.o.d. And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and brought him to the Council, and set up false witnesses who said: This man ceaseth not to speak words against the holy place and the law; for we have heard him say, that Jesus, this Naza-rene, shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered to us." The high-priest asks him: Are these things so? And Stephen delivers an address, which has since been the subject of much discussion amongst critics and divines. The contents of the speech taken by themselves do not present any difficulty, so far as the sense is concerned, but regarded as a reply to the accusations brought against him by the false witnesses, the defence of Stephen has perhaps been interpreted in a greater variety of ways than any other part of the New Testament. Its shadowy outlines have been used as a setting for the pious thoughts of subsequent

{148}

generations, and every imaginable intention has been ascribed to the proto-martyr, every possible or impossible reference detected in the phrases of his oration. This has mainly arisen from the imperfect nature of the account in the Acts, and the absence of many important details which has left criticism to adopt that "divinatorisch-combinatorische"

procedure which is so apt to evolve any favourite theory from the inner consciousness. The prevailing view, however, amongst the great majority of critics of all schools is, that Stephen is represented in the Acts as the forerunner of the Apostle Paul, antic.i.p.ating his universalistic principles, and proclaiming with more or less of directness the abrogation of Mosaic ordinances and the freedom of the Christian Church.(1) This view was certainly advanced by Augustine, and lies at the base of his famous saying: "Si sanctus Stepha.n.u.s sic non oras-set, ecclesia Paulum non haberet,"(2) but it was first clearly enunciated by Baur, who subjected the speech of Stephen to detailed a.n.a.lysis,(3) and his interpretation has to a large extent been adopted even by apologists. It must be clearly understood that adherence to this reading of the aim and meaning of the speech, as it is given in the Acts, by no means involves an admission of its authenticity, which, on the contrary, is impugned by Baur himself, and by a large number of independent critics. We have the misfortune of differing most materially from the prevalent view regarding the contents of the speech, and we maintain that, as it stands in the Acts, there is not a

{149}

word in it which can be legitimately construed into an attack upon the Mosaic law, or which antic.i.p.ates the Christian universalism of Paul.

s.p.a.ce, 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 a.s.signed 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 a.s.serted, the direct forerunner of Paul, and in his hearing enunciated

{150}

sentiments like those ascribed to him, already expressing much more than the germ--indeed the full spirit--of Pauline universality, it would be pa.s.sing 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 a.s.sertion, 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 a.s.sumed 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.

{151}

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 p.r.o.nounced; 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 p.r.o.nounce 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,

{152}

attacked and stoned Stephen.(1) The actual stoning(2) is carried out with all regard to legal forms;(3) the victim being taken out of the city,(4) and the witnesses casting the first stone,(5) and for this purpose taking off their outer garments. The whole account, with its singular mixture of utter lawlessness and formality, is extremely improbable,(6) and more especially when the speech itself is considered.

The proceedings commence in an orderly manner, and the high priest calls upon Stephen for his defence. The council and audience listen patiently and quietly to his speech, and no interruption takes place until he has said all that he had to sav, for it must be apparent that when the speaker abandons narrative and argument and breaks into direct invective, there could not have been any intention to prolong the address, as no expectation of calm attention after such denunciations could have been natural. The tumult cuts short the oration precisely where the author had exhausted his

{163}

subject, and by temporary lawlessness overcomes the legal difficulty of a sentence which the Sanhedrin, without the ratification of the Roman authority, could not have carried out. As soon as the tumult has effected these objects, all becomes orderly and legal again; and, consequently, the witnesses can lay their garments "at a young man's feet whose name was Saul." The princ.i.p.al actor in the work is thus dramatically introduced. As the trial commences with a supernatural illumination of the face of Stephen, it ends with a supernatural vision, in which Stephen sees heaven opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of G.o.d. Such a trial and such an execution present features which are undoubtedly not historical.

This impression is certainly not lessened when we find how many details of the trial and death of Stephen are based on the accounts in the Gospels of the trial and death of Jesus.(1) The irritated adversaries of Stephen stir up the people and the elders and scribes, and come upon him and lead him to the Council.(2) They seek false witness against him;(3) and these false witnesses accuse him of speaking against the temple and the law.(4) The false witnesses who are set up against Jesus with similar testimony, according to the first two Synoptics, are strangely omitted by the third. The reproduction of this trait here has much that is suggestive. The high priest asks: "Are these things so?"(5) Stephen, at

{154}

the close of his speech, exclaims: "I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of G.o.d." Jesus says: "Henceforth shall the Son of Man be seated on the right hand of the power of G.o.d."(1) Whilst he is being stoned, Stephen prays, saying: "Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit;" and, similarly, Jesus on the cross cries, with a loud voice: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; and, having said this, he expired."(2) Stephen, as he is about to die, cries, with a loud voice: "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge; and when he said this he fell asleep;" and Jesus says: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."(3) These two sayings of Jesus are not given anywhere but in the third Synoptic,(4) and their imitation by Stephen, in another work of the same Evangelist, is a peculiarity which deserves attention. It is argued by apologists(5) that nothing is more natural than that the first martyrs should have the example of the suffering Jesus in their minds, and die with his expressions of love and resignation on their lips. On the other hand, taken along with other most suspicious circ.u.mstances which we have already pointed out, and with the fact, which we shall presently demonstrate, that the speech of Stephen is nothing more

{155}

than a composition by the Author of Acts, the singular a.n.a.logies presented by this narrative with the trial and last words of Jesus in the Gospels seem to us an additional indication of its inauthenticity.

As Baur(1) and Zeller(2) have well argued, the use of two expressions of Jesus only found in the third Synoptic is a phenomenon which is much more naturally explained by attributing them to the Author, who of course knew that Gospel well, than to Stephen who did not know it at all.(3) The prominence which is given to this episode of the first Christian martyrdom is intelligible in itself, and it acquires fresh significance when it is considered as the introduction of the Apostle Paul, whose perfect silence regarding the proto-martyr, however, confirms the belief which we otherwise acquire, that the whole narrative and speech, whatever unknown tradition may have suggested them, are, as we have them, to be ascribed to the Author of the Acts.

On closer examination, one of the first questions which arises is: how could such a speech have been reported? Although Neander(4) contends that we are not justified in a.s.serting that all that is narrated regarding Stephen in the Acts occurred in a single day, we think it cannot be doubted that the intention is to describe the arrest, trial, and execution as rapidly following each other on the same day. "They came upon him, and seized him, and

{156}

brought him to the Council, and set up false witnesses, who said,"

&c.(1) There is no ground here for interpolating any imprisonment, and if not, then it follows clearly that Stephen, being immediately called upon to answer for himself, is, at the end of his discourse, violently carried away without the city to be stoned. No preparations could have been made even to take notes of his speech, if upon any ground it were reasonable to a.s.sume the possibility of an intention to do so; and indeed it could not, under the circ.u.mstances, have been foreseen that he should either have been placed in such a position, or have been able to make a speech at all. The rapid progress of all the events described, and the excitement consequent on such tumultuous proceedings, render an ordinary explanation of the manner in which such a speech could have been preserved improbable, and it is difficult to suppose that it could have been accurately remembered, with all its curious details, by one who was present. Improbable as it is, however, this is the only suggestion which can possibly be advanced. The majority of apologists suppose that the speech was heard and reported by the Apostle Paul himself,(2) or at least that it was communicated or written down either by a member of the Sanhedrin, or by some one who was present.(3) As there is no information on the point, there is ample scope for imagination, but when we come to consider its linguistic and other peculiarities, it must be borne in

{157}

mind that the extreme difficulty of explaining the preservation of such a speech must be an element in judging whether it is not rather a composition by the Author of Acts. The language in which it was delivered, again, is the subject of much difference of opinion, many maintaining that it must have originally been spoken in Aramaic,(1) whilst others hold that it was delivered in Greek.(2) Still, a large number of critics and divines of course a.s.sert that the speech attributed to Stephen is at least substantially authentic. As might naturally be expected in a case where negative criticism is arrayed against a canonical work upheld by the time-honoured authority of the church, those who dispute its authenticity(3) are in the minority. It is maintained by the latter that the language is more or less that of the writer of the rest of the work, and that the speech in fact as it lies before us is a later composition by the Author of the Acts of the Apostles.