Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
The message of Stephen and its relationship to flrst-century Judaism and early Christian theology has recently been the subject of several studies. It is, I suppose, universally agreed that Stephen was a hellenistic Jew of the Diaspora who came into acute conflict with other Diaspora Jews of a more conservative kind domiciled in Jerusalem and that these took the initiative in effecting his arrest and trial. But that is as far as agreement goes. The attempt to understand further Stephen's message and influence has produced the widest divergence of opinion. To some he is the originator of the mission to the Gentiles and Christian universalism whose conception of Christianity was adopted by later preachers and teachers with momentous consequences for Christian history. To others he remained in essence a Jew, albeit of a liberal kind, even after his conversion, whose aim was to propagate a type of Judaism which was strongly anti-Temple and anti-cultus. On this view Stephen stands in the line of Nathan, Hosea, Trito-Isaiah, the Rechabites, some Essene circles and the Ebionites, as pictured in the Pseudo-Clementine writings, in asserting a non-material form of worship, independent of the Temple cultus, as being authentic Judaism. Still others believe that Stephen cleverly preached Jesus in his interpretation of Joseph, Moses and Joshua; on this view he is a typologist whose aim is to show that Jesus' passion has been pre-figured in the persecutions which God's righteous servants have always had to endure. It is not our purpose here to examine and criticize these conflicting opinions in detail but to seek to answer two questions, namely (i) Was Stephen's position an isolated ine in first-century Judaism and in the early Church? (ii) And, if so, is it yet possible to trace his influence on Alexandrian Christianity when it comes into historical perspective in the early second century of our era?
page 31 note 1 Menchini, L. M., Il discorso di S. Stefano Proto-martire nella Letteratura e Predicazione Christiana Primitiva (Rome, 1951);Google ScholarManson, W., The Epistle to the Hebrews (1951), pp. 25–46;Google ScholarFoerster, W., Stephanus und die Urgemeinde in Diense unter dem Wort (1953), pp. 9–30;Google ScholarSimon, M., J. Ecclesiastical History, II, no. 2 (1951), pp. 127–42;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSimon, M., St Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (1958) to which I am especially indebted.Google Scholar
page 31 note 2 Manson, op. cit. pp. 25, 37.Google Scholar
page 31 note 3 Simon, J.E.H. p. 141; Simon, St Stephen, p. III.Google Scholar
page 31 note 4 Rackham, R. B., The Acts of the Apostles (1904), pp. 92–5;Google ScholarHanson, R. P. C., Theology, L (1947), p. 142 f.;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWilliams, C. S. C., The Acts of the Apostles (1957), pp. 100–2.Google Scholar
page 32 note 1 Schoeps, H. J., Theologie und Geschwhte des Judenchristentwns (1949), p. 411, believes that the ideas developed in Stephen's speech are those of James, Jesus' brother, and that Stephen himself is a mythical figure. Such a radical view, which plays fast and loose with Acts, seems to me to be wide of the mark.Google Scholar
page 32 note 2 Die älteste Geschichte Israels im Rahmen lehrhafser Darstellungen (1917).Google Scholar
page 32 note 3 Simon, St Stephen, pp. 40–1.Google Scholar
page 32 note 4 Burrows, M., More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1958), pp. 258, 363–5.Google Scholar
page 32 note 5 Martyr, Justin, Dial. CXVII, 2.Google Scholar
page 33 note 1 iv. 8–12. Simon, J.E.H. pp. 536–7.Google Scholar
page 33 note 2 iv. 27–30.Google Scholar
page 33 note 3 The verba Christi concerning the destruction of the temple which appear on the lips of the false witnesses in Mark xiv. 58.Google Scholar
page 34 note 1 Op. cit. pp. 25–46.Google Scholar
page 34 note 2 op. cit. p. 36. Simon's further criticisms in St Stephen, pp. 100–4, seem to me decisive.Google Scholar
page 34 note 3 Cf. Heb. viii. 5,
.Google Scholar
page 34 note 4 Heb. viii. 7, 13.Google Scholar
page 34 note 5 On the summaries see Cadbury, H. J., B.C. v, note 30;Google ScholarCadoux, C. J., J.B.L. LVI (1937), p. 177 f.;Google ScholarBenoit, P., Mélanges Goguet, 1, note i. The historical value of the summaries has often been called in question. No doubt there was a natural tendency to exaggerate the growth of Christianity; on the other hand the brevity of the reference to the priests here may imply that Luke's knowledge rests on more information than we now possess. See further the cautious conclusions of Cadbury, op. Cit. 402 and Williams, op. cit. p. 35.Google Scholar
page 35 note 1 Matt. xxvii. 25; John v. 17 f., vi. 32–5, vii. 19, 37–9 Rev. ii. 9, iii. 9; Barn. iii. 6, iv. 8, xii. 1, xvi. 1–2.Google Scholar
page 35 note 2 The Origins of the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (1946), pp. 109–13.Google Scholar
page 35 note 3 Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35, x. 17, xii. 9, xiii. 54 (
followed by 
) and John ix. 22, xii. 42, xvi. 2 are relevant here.Google Scholar
page 35 note 4 Dial. cum Tryphone xvii. I: 
.
page 35 note 5 Strack, H. L., Jesus, die Häretiker und die Christen, pp. 21–6. Jesus is described in the stories as ben Pandera.Google Scholar
page 35 note 6 Yadaim, Tosephta ii. 13;Google ScholarSabbath, Tosephta xiii. 5; Strack, op. cit. pp. 61 f.; Kilpatrick, op. cit. p. 112. The rabbinical polemic against the doctrine of the ‘two powers’ which had been held in earlier Judaism (cf. Qumran IQS. iii. 13–iv. 26) may also have been invoked against the Christian doctrine of the Person of Christ.Google Scholar
page 36 note 1 Cf. especially Clem. Rec. i. 38; Simon, J.E.H. pp. 139–40.Google Scholar
page 36 note 2 Klausner, J., The Messianic Idea in Israel (1956), p. 513.Google Scholar
page 36 note 3 Taanith iv. 8; Tamid vii. 3.Google Scholar
page 36 note 4 Cf. Bab. Metsia xxviii. b.Google Scholar
page 36 note 5 Sukkah xli. a; Menahoth xxv. b; Rosh ha-Shanah xxx. a; Betsah v. b; Taanith xvii. b; San. hedrin xxii. b; Bekhoroth liii. b.Google Scholar
page 37 note 1 St Stephen, pp. 104 and 507.Google Scholar
page 37 note 2 Epiph. de Mens. et Pond. xiv.Google Scholar
page 37 note 3 Cf. Sibyl. Or. v. 48, 421; x. 163. On Hadrian's pro-Jewish policy see the valuable study of Thieme, K., Kirche und Synagogue (1944), pp. 22–5Google Scholar and Kleist, J., The Apostolic Fathers (1948), pp. 31–2.Google Scholar This policy is also illustrated by the Alexandrian Acts of the Martyrssee Von, Premerstein in Philologus Suppl. XVI, 11 (1923).Google Scholar
page 37 note 4 Suet. Jul. 76.Google Scholar I have dealt with the dating of Barnabas in the j. Egyptian Archaeology, XLIV (1958), pp. 101–7 where fuller details are given.Google Scholar
page 38 note 1 Diod. S. 1, 90, 4;Google ScholarBybi, Philo. (c. A.fl. ioo) in Eus. Praep. Ev. i, x. i6, 20, 21; IV Macc. xiii. i3; Jos. Ant. xv. 364.Google Scholar
page 39 note 1 A distinction already implied in the LXX; cf. II Chron. vi. 21, 
. The LXX uses the verb 
of the divine temporary dwelling in the temple, but reserves 
for God's permanent dwelling in heaven.Google Scholar See further Simon, J.E.H. pp. 132–3.Google Scholar
page 40 note 1 Found also in a rabbinical tradition in Mekilta; cf. also Aboda Zarah iv b–v a.Google Scholar
page 40 note 2 Cf. Jer. vii. 18, viii. 2, xix. 13, Zeph. i. 5; II Chron. xxxiii. 3, 5; Deut. iv. 19; xvii. 3; II Kings xxiii. 5.Google Scholar
page 40 note 3 Dial. xxii. 2–6.Google Scholar
page 41 note 1 Dial. xix. 6.Google Scholar
page 41 note 2 
.Google Scholar
page 41 note 3 Based on Deut. xviii. 15 and found later in the Ebionite Clem. Rec. i. 36, 43 where Jesus is described as ‘propheta quem Moyses praedixit, qui est Christus aeturnus’. Apart from Christian sources the only evidence for this designation is found among the Samaritans in their doctrine of ta'eb (the Restorer). The Samaritan attitude to the Jerusalem temple was the same as that of Stephen and Barnabas.Google Scholar
page 42 note 1 Matt. xxvii. 19; Luke xxiii. 47; I Pet. iii. 18, iv. 18; I John ii. 1.Google Scholar
page 42 note 2 Taylor, V., The Names of Jesus (1953), pp. 80–3.Google Scholar
page 42 note 3 Williams, op. Cit. p. 78.Google Scholar
page 42 note 4 C.D.C. vi. 11.Google Scholar
page 42 note 5 Eus. H.E. II. 23. 4: 
.Google Scholar
page 42 note 6 vi. 7.Google Scholar
page 43 note 1 The Tannaites divided their instruction into five parts: (i) the Test; (ii) the Commandments; (iii) Charity; (iv) the Penalties; (v) the Reward and World to Come. With:Google Scholar (i) Cf. Barn. i–iv, esp. iv. 9. (ii) Cf. Barn. v–xvi with its emphasis on suffering, commandments, baptism, circumcision, sacrifice and covenant. (iii) Cf. Barn. xviii–xx. (iv) Cf. Barn. x. (v) Cf. Barn. xxi.Google Scholar
page 44 note 1 The rabbinical character of the epistle is shown by the division into Haggadah and I-Jalakhah, by its literary style and knowledge of Jewish rites, and by its frequent use of the rhetorical question as a didactic device.Google Scholar
page 44 note 2 The Epistle to Diognetus, the Apology of Aristides and the Ebionite literature are the only possible exceptions to this statement.Google Scholar
page 44 note 3 This subsequently plays a considerable part in Jewish legends about Moses. A full list is given in Schürer, E., G.J.V. II, pp. 34 f.Google Scholar
page 45 note 1 Eus. H.E. II. 16.Google ScholarRoberts, C. H. plausiblysuggests, in J.T.S. L. (1949), pp. 155–68, that Eusebius' reference is a reminiscence of the arrival of Mark7apos;s Gospel in Alexandria.Google Scholar
