Acts 7:1-53

CRITICAL REMARKS

Acts 7:1. The high priest’s question, Are these things so? analogous to that put to Christ (Matthew 26:62), was equivalent to a modern “Guilty or not guilty?”

Acts 7:2. Concerning what Stephen said in reply, Luke’s information may have been derived either from Paul, who probably was present on the occasion (Acts 26:10), and afterwards in his own speeches and writings reproduced the martyr’s language (compare Acts 7:48 with Acts 16:24, and Acts 7:53 with Galatians 3:19), or from records of it preserved by the Church at Jerusalem. The God of glory.—i.e., who manifested His presence by means of the glory (Exodus 16:7; Exodus 16:10; Exodus 24:16; Exodus 17; Exodus 33:18; Exodus 33:22; Exodus 40:34; Exodus 35; Leviticus 9:6; Leviticus 23; Numbers 14:10; Numbers 14:21)—i.e., of the Shechinah or luminous appearance which shone between the Cherubim (Psalms 80:1). Before he dwelt in Charran, or Haran.—Carræ in North-West Mesopotamia, about twenty-five miles from Edessa, one of the supposed sites of Ur of the Chaldees, which, however, is now almost unanimously found in Hur, the most important of the early capitals of Chaldæa, the present-day Mugheir, at no great distance from the mouth and six miles to the west of the Euphrates. That Stephen’s statement does not contradict Genesis. (Acts 12:1), which places the call of Abraham at Haran (Holtzmann) may be inferred from these facts—

(1) that Genesis 15:7 and Nehemiah 9:7 both represent Ur of the Chaldees as the locality in which Abraham received Jehovah’s call, and

(2) that with these both Josephus and Philo agree. There is nothing unreasonable in supposing the call to have been given twice, first in Ur and again in Haran.

Acts 7:4. When his father was dead.—If Abraham was Terah’s firstborn (Genesis 11:26), and seventy-five when he departed from Haran (Genesis 12:4), then Terah could only have been one hundred and forty-five years old at his death, whereas, according to Genesis 11:32, Terah was two hundred and five when he died, and must have survived Abraham’s departure from Haran by sixty years; but if Abraham was Terah’s youngest son, and born in Terah’s one hundred and thirtieth year, which, according to the Hebrew narrative, is not impossible, then as Abraham was seventy-five years old when he migrated from Haran, Terah must have been two hundred and five when he died—which agrees with Stephen’s narrative. For he removed the best texts read (God) removed him.

Acts 7:5. None inheritance in it.—Not contradicted by Abraham’s purchase of the field and cave at Machpelah (Genesis 23:9), which were meant for “a possession” of a burying place but not for an inheritance in the strict sense of the term.

Acts 7:6. Four hundred years.—If Stephen included in these four centuries the whole period of sojourning, bondage, and oppression, exactly as Jehovah did in Genesis (Acts 15:13), this seems to be at variance with Paul’s reckoning of the interval between the Abrahamic promise and the Mosaic law as four hundred and thirty years (Galatians 3:17), which interval again is represented in Exodus (Exodus 12:40) as “the sojourning of Israel who dwelt in Egypt.” Assuming that four hundred may have been a round number for four hundred and thirty, the difficulty remains how to harmonise the statements of Stephen and Paul. If, according to Paul, the interval from Abraham to Moses was four hundred and thirty years, then, inasmuch as Isaac was born twenty-five years after the promise was first given, and was sixty years old at the birth of Jacob, who was one hundred and thirty years of age when he stood before Pharaoh, then 430 − (25 + 60 + 130) = 215, which leaves only two hundred, and fifteen for the years of exile, bondage, and oppression. Either, therefore, Stephen, following the LXX. version of Exodus 12:40, which inserts “in the land of Canaan” after “in the land of Egypt, designed his four hundred years to embrace the same period as Paul’s four hundred and thirty indicate—a view supported by Josephus (Ant., II. xv. 2), or he followed Genesis 15:13, and understood the four hundred to refer to the Egyptian sojourn, bondage, and oppression, in which case he is again supported by Josephus (Ant., II. ix. 1; Wars, V. ix. 4), who gives both views, but not by Paul. It would remove all appearance of contrariety if Genesis 15:13 signified by “a land not theirs,” Canaan as well as Egypt; if this cannot be done, then at the worst Paul and Stephen must be held to have followed different traditions.

Acts 7:7. They shall come forth and serve Me in this place.—“They shall come hither again” of Genesis 15:16 is replaced by “and serve Me in this place,” suggested by rather than borrowed from Exodus 3:2, in which the words are “ye shall serve God upon this mountain.” Stephen, unintentionally mixing up the passages in Genesis and Exodus, may not have been hindered by the Spirit, because the sentiment he expressed was correct; or under the Spirit’s guidance he may have selected the new clause suggested by Exodus to explain the import of the one in Genesis.

Acts 7:8. The covenant of circumcision.—I.e., of which circumcision was the sign. See Romans 4:11. The twelve patriarchs.—I.e., the twelve sons of Jacob as the founders of the tribes or heads of the families of Israel. The term also applied to Abraham (Hebrews 7:4) and to David (Acts 2:29).

Acts 7:9. Moved with envy, or jealousy, they, the patriarchs, sold Joseph into Egypt—i.e., to be carried thither. Stephen condenses the Genesis narrative.

Acts 7:10. The Pharaoh under whom Joseph rose to power was the last of the Hyksos or Shepherd kings, Apophis, who, not being himself a native Egyptian, might feel disposed to favour the Hebrew stranger who had in so remarkable a manner interpreted his dreams and saved the country.

Acts 7:11. A dearth over all the land of Egypt and Canaan.—Brugsch, Sayce, and others find this dearth in a famine, which, according to an inscription from a nobleman’s tomb at Eileythia in Southern Egypt, prevailed in the land for several years, and during which the dead man (Baba), according to the inscription, “distributed corn to the city each year of famine.” Baba, the nobleman in question, is supposed to have lived shortly before the establishment of the eighteenth dynasty. Counting four hundred and thirty years back from B.C. 1325, when Menephtah II. ascended the Egyptian throne, gives the reign of Apophis as the commencement of the exile according to Stephen, as the date of the promise according to Paul. (But see above on Acts 7:6.)

Acts 7:14. Threescore and fifteen souls.—So the LXX. in Genesis 46:27; but the Hebrew text of Genesis 46:27; Exodus 1:5, and Deuteronomy 10:22 gives threescore and ten as the number of souls that went down into Egypt—i.e., the sixty-six of Genesis 46:26 with four (Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh) added. The additional five were probably Joseph’s grandsons, counted by the LXX. as among his sons. Stephen, a Hellenist, most likely followed the LXX. without deeming it necessary to correct what after all was no mis-statement, if “sons” be taken in the wider sense of descendants.

Acts 7:16. Carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money.—Two historical inaccuracies are commonly discovered here:

1. That Jacob and the fathers were all buried at Sychem, or Shechem, Abraham’s earliest settlement in Canaan (Genesis 12:6); whereas Jacob was interred at Hebron (Genesis 1:13), and only Joseph’s bones were laid in Sychem (Joshua 24:32), Scripture being silent as to where those of the other fathers were deposited.

2. That Abraham purchased a sepulchre at Shechem from the sons of Emmor, or Hamor, for a sum of money, or for a price in silver; whereas the tomb Abraham bought was at Hebron, while the seller was Ephron the Hittite (Genesis 23:16), and Jacob’s purchase was of a field at Shechem (Genesis 33:19), in which afterwards Joseph’s bones were interred (Joshua 24:32). As to the first part of Stephen’s statement that Jacob and the fathers were all carried over into Shechem and laid in a tomb, nothing can invalidate that. If Stephen must be understood as asserting that all were laid in the same tomb, that was not so, since Jacob was buried at Hebron and Joseph at Sychem, unless it can be shown that Joseph’s bones were subsequently reinterred in the patriarchal vault at Hebron—a hypothesis not impossible, certainly, but still not capable of proof. If, further, Stephen purposed to affirm that Abraham bought a tomb at Shechem, this can only be harmonised with Genesis by maintaining that the tomb at Shechem was purchased twice—once by Abraham and afterwards by Jacob, which is not a likely supposition. The suggestion that Abraham has been either substituted in the text for Jacob, or inserted in the text which originally had no nominative to the verb “purchased,” is rendered inadmissible by all existing MSS. having Abraham. Yet if Jacob were inserted every difficulty would not vanish. It would still remain impossible to maintain that Jacob was interred at Shechem. Could Stephen himself be recalled, it might be possible to solve this problem; in his absence it must be given up, at least till additional data be forthcoming. On the ground of this unsolved problem it would be rash to challenge the inspiration of either Stephen or Luke.

Acts 7:18. Another king which knew not Joseph.—This was Aahmes, the first monarch of the eighteenth dynasty, “a prince of great force of character, brave, active, energetic, liberal, beloved by his subjects” (Rawlinson, The Story of the Nations—Egypt, p. 152).

Acts 7:19. Dealt subtilly with our kindred, or race.—With Aahmes the new policy towards the Israelites may have begun, but the author of the cruel decree appears to have been Seti I., while Rameses II. was the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and Menephtah II. the Pharaoh of the Exodus. They cast out.—Pharaoh’s object in the oppression appears to have been to render the lives of the Israelites so miserable that they would rather cast out their offspring than see them grow up to experience such woe as themselves endured. If he be read instead of they, then the well-known decree (Exodus 1:16) is that to which Stephen alludes.

Acts 7:22. Learned.—Better, trained or instructed.

Acts 7:24. Suffer wrong, injured, by beating (Exodus 2:11). The wrongdoer may have been one of Pharaoh’s taskmasters. A bas-relief recovered from the Nile Valley exhibits one of these standing over a gang of slaves, whip in hand, and saying as he lashes them, “To your work, O slaves: ye are idle!”

Acts 7:25. He supposed should be he was supposing, meaning that was his habitual mood of mind at this period. Would deliver them should be gives them deliverance or salvation; the present tense signifying either that the deliverance was at hand or was beginning with the blow then struck.

Acts 7:29. Madian, or Midian.—In the south-east of the Sinaitic peninsula.

Acts 7:30. Mount Sinai.—Exodus (Exodus 3:1) gives, as the scene of this Divine manifestation, Horeb, which was probably the name of the range, Sinai being the designation of the particular peak (Robinson, Eadie), though others regard Sinai as the range and Horeb as the peak. Whether Sinai, the mountain of the Law, was Jebel Serbal (Burckhardt, Lepsius, and Ebers), or Ras-es-Sufsafeh (Robinson, Stanley, Porter), or Jebel Musa (Wilson, Sandie), travellers are not decided. Josephus (Ant., II. xi. 1) and Paul (Galatians 4:25) locate it in Arabia, which Sayce thinks to a writer of the first century would mean Arabia Petræa. Wherefore he looks for Sinai not in the peninsula, but among the ranges of Mount Seir in the neighbourhood of Kadesh Barnea (see The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, pp. 263–373).

In Acts 7:32 the order of the Hebrew text is transposed.

Acts 7:35. A deliverer, or redeemer, λυτρωτήν.—A latent allusion to the work of Christ.

Acts 7:36. After that he had showed should be having done or wrought.

Acts 7:37. The Lord your are omitted in best MSS. Like unto me might be rendered as he raised up me.

Acts 7:38. The Church.—The use of ἐκκλησία—a term employed by the LXX. (Deuteronomy 18:16; Deuteronomy 23:1; Psalms 26:12)—for the congregation of Israel warrants the inference that Stephen at least regarded the Hebrew nation as a church and the new assembly of believers as its representative under the Christian dispensation.

Acts 7:41. They made a calf is one word in the original. The calf, or bullock, was selected in imitation of the Egyptians, who worshipped an ox, Apis at Memphis and Mnevis at Heliopolis.

Acts 7:42. In the book of the prophets.—The quotation is from Amos 5:25. The interrogation, Have ye offered unto Me? etc., is much used by the higher criticism to prove that the sacrificial system of the so-styled priest code had no existence in the time of Moses; but the prophet’s meaning is not that the Israelites did not offer sacrifices to Jehovah in the wilderness, but that, though they did, their hearts ran after their idolatries—the worship of Moloch and the Star Rephan—so that Jehovah rejected their insincere service.

Acts 7:43. The tabernacle of Moloch and the star of your god Remphan.—The Hebrew might be rendered Siccuth your king and Chiun (or the shrine of) your images, the star of your god (R.V.), Siccuth being in this case the name of one idol which the Hebrews worshipped as their king, and Chiun the name of another, believed to have been the planet Saturn, of which the name among the Syrians and Arabians was Kçwân. Stephen, however, followed the LXX., who understood Siccuth as equivalent to “tabernacle”—i.e., the portable tent in which the idol’s image was carried—and for “your king” substituted, with some ancient MSS., Moloch, the idol meant; while for “Chiun your images” they read “the star of your god Rephan,” which Kircher believes to be Koptic for Saturn, and Schrader regards as a corruption from Kewan. That the LXX. failed to intelligibly translate the second Hebrew clause was of small moment to Stephen. The words, “the star of the god,” showed that God had given the Israelites up to worship the host of heaven. The substitution of Babylon for Damascus in the Hebrew and the LXX. is explainable by the fact that Babylon had long been associated in Jewish history with the exile.

Acts 7:44. The tabernacle of the testimony in the wilderness was so called because it contained the Ark in which the two tables of the Decalogue were kept (Numbers 11:15; Numbers 17:13).

Acts 7:45. Our fathers that came after should be simply our fathers. Jesus is Joshua, as in Hebrews 4:8. Into (lit. in) the possession of the Gentiles.—Meaning that the Ark was brought in to remain in the possession of the nations—i.e., in their land. The R.V. reads, “When they entered on the possession of the nations”; lit. “at” or “in” their taking possession of (the land of) the nations.

Acts 7:46. Tabernacle should be “habitation,” permanent abode, like “house” in Acts 7:47.

Acts 7:48. The prophet was Isaiah (Isaiah 66:1).

Acts 7:52. Which of the prophets, etc., echoed the words of Christ (Matthew 5:12; Matthew 23:31; Luke 13:34).

Acts 7:53. By the disposition of the angels is better rendered in the R.V., as it was ordained by angels, or as ordinances of angels; lit. unto ordinances of angels. Compare Galatians 3:19 and Hebrews 2:2.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 7:1

The Apology of Stephen; or, a Vindication of Christianity

I. To whom it was addressed.—

1. The Jewish Sanhedrim, consisting of Annas, Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and perhaps also Gamaliel, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea, if the last two had not by this time withdrawn from the conclave. The court that had already condemned the apostles (Acts 7:27) was little likely to give a fair hearing to the eloquent deacon.

2. The Jewish people generally. Through their official representatives, with whom at this moment they were acting in sympathy and concert.

3. All whom in after ages it might concern. Though this presumably entered not into Stephen’s, it without doubt formed part of the Holy Spirit’s mind.

II. In what spirit it was spoken.—

1. With affection. Hinted at by the term “brethren” with which Stephen saluted his judges and accusers. A sign of goodness as well as greatness on the part of Stephen that he disowned not kinship with the truculent adversaries who were then thirsting for his blood.

2. With reverence. Not forgetting the respect due to the elders of his people, he courteously addressed them as “fathers.” No man ever injures his cause by rendering honour to whom honour is due.

III. Of what statements it was composed.—

1. A historical retrospect. The drama of Israel’s career was opened out in three successive acts.

(1) The age of the Patriarchs before Moses (Acts 7:2); or the age of the promise, rehearsing the story of Abraham’s call by the God of Glory first from Mesopotamia (Ur of the Chaldees) and afterwards from Haran, to go into the Land of Canaan. This call the patriarch obeyed, only to find that God, who had promised to bestow Canaan for possession, on himself and on his seed after him, when as yet he had no child, actually gave him in it none inheritance. Rather God predicted that before his descendants should come into their heritage they should be bondmen in a strange land for four hundred years. At the same time, in pledge that the promise would be fulfilled and the land kept for its appointed heirs, the God of glory gave to the patriarch the covenant of circumcision, which was handed on from sire to son, till in Jacob’s days events began to move in the direction of bringing together the heirs and the inheritance. Joseph, his father’s favourite son, was sold into Egypt by his envious brethren, who also by a singular combination of circumstances some time later, in a season of famine, repaired thither to find the brother they had evil entreated governor over all the land. At his invitation Jacob, with his kindred, numbering threescore and fifteen souls, went down into Egypt, where they died and left behind them children, in what was soon to become for them a house of bondage. With that closed the first act in the drama.

(2) The age of Moses (Acts 7:17); or, the age of the law, sketching the career of Moses in three periods of forty years. “Three generations rolled over him,” writes Emil Zittel (Die Entstehung der Bibel, p. 40). “Three times he lived through the holy number of forty years; as son of Egyptian wisdom, as shepherd of the wilderness, as emancipator of his people.” Of these periods the first began during the currency of Israel’s oppression, and, embracing the lawgiver’s birth and education in the house of Pharaoh, ended with his flight into Midian (Acts 7:17). The second closed with the appearance to him in the Wilderness of Sinai, of an angel of God, and his subsequent departure into Egypt to lead forth his people from captivity, which he successfully accomplished (Acts 7:30). The third opened with the Exodus, included the wilderness wanderings, and terminated with the entrance into Canaan under Joshua (Acts 7:37).

(3) The Age of the Prophets; or, the Age of the Temple (Acts 7:46), telling the brief but simple tale of David’s proposal to find a habitation for the God of Jacob, and of Solomon’s building Him a house, in which indeed Jehovah was formally worshipped, while outside His prophets were disobeyed and persecuted.

2. An implied representation. Of the history of Jesus, which had its obvious parallel and prefigurement in the just recited career of the nation.

(1) Like Joseph whom his brethren sold for envy, but whom Jehovah delivered and appointed to be their preserver, Christ—though Stephen leaves this unexpressed—had been rejected by them, yea even sold into the hands of His enemies and put to death, raised up by God, exalted to the highest throne in heaven, made Lord of all and sent to be their Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel and remission of sins.
(2) Like Moses, whom his countrymen understood not and resisted, but who afterwards led them forth to liberty, Christ had come unto His own, who likewise knew Him not, but thrust Him from them, and was coming again to offer them emancipation from sin and death.
(3) Like the men who in the wilderness preferred the tabernacle of Moloch to that Jehovah had caused to be constructed for them, and like their descendants who desecrated the temple by carrying on within its sacred precincts, in defiance of the warnings of Jehovah’s prophets, heathen orgies instead of the legitimate Jehovah worship, so had they defiled, desecrated, and despised the true tabernacle and temple of Jehovah, even Jesus of Nazareth, and preferred to Him the lifeless stones of the material edifice, and the meaningless service of an effete ritual.

IV. With what arguments it was charged.—

1. Against supposing that the true worship of Jehovah was bound up with the law. This could not be:

(1) Because the God of Glory had appeared unto the father of the nation in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran (Acts 7:2). If a theophany or Divine manifestation be the basis of all acceptable worship, as the law itself says (Exodus 22:24), then clearly such worship did not originate at Sinai but at Ur of the Chaldees, and not with Moses but with Abraham.

(2) Because the promise of a Messiah, admittedly the kernel of Mosaism, was given to Abraham when as yet he had no child and therefore no descendants on whom to enjoin the law (Acts 7:5).

(3) Because the covenant of circumcision in which all Israelites gloried as of the essence of their law was not of Moses but of Abraham (Acts 7:8; compare John 7:22).

(4) Because the presence of God with His people to protect and deliver them, which was what pious Jews understood by salvation, did not begin with His coming down to talk with them at Sinai, but had been enjoyed by Joseph in Egypt (Acts 7:10), and by Joseph’s father and brethren through him (Acts 7:14).

2. Against supposing that the true worship of Jehovah was bound up with Moses. This it could not be:

(1) Because when Moses first offered himself to his countrymen, in Jehovah’s name, as a deliverer, they would not receive him but thrust him from them (Acts 7:23).

(2) Because Moses himself, who had been miraculously called and strengthened to effect their temporal deliverance, had distinctly pointed them to a greater prophet than himself, even to Jesus, though Stephen leaves this supplementary thought unspoken (Acts 7:30).

(3) Because though Moses had been the medium of conveying to Israel the “living oracles,” or oracles of life received from Jehovah, he could not secure Israel’s obedience to these, even at the moment when Israel was encamped in Jehovah’s presence (Acts 7:38).

3. Against supposing that the true worship of Jehovah was bound up with the temple. This once more was impossible:

(1) Because in the wilderness the tabernacle, which was the shadow of the temple, could not retain the allegiance of the people to Jehovah. Instead of offering to Jehovah slain beasts and sacrifices at the tabernacle door, they took up the tent of Moloch and carried about the star of the god Remphan (Acts 7:42).

(2) Because the temple was never meant to be anything more than an emblem of Jehovah’s true habitation, as saith the prophet, “The heaven is My throne,” etc. (Acts 7:46).

(3) Because the existence of the temple could not keep Israel’s fathers from resisting the Holy Ghost and murdering Jehovah’s prophets (Acts 7:51).

4. Against supposing that the true worship of Jehovah was bound up with them. They had certainly been honoured above all peoples, had received the law as ordained by—i.e., as it were, at the hands of angels, had listened to the voices of Jehovah’s prophets showing before the coming of the Righteous One—i.e., of Messiah—and had enjoyed the gracious influences of the Holy Spirit upon their hearts, and yet to what had all these gracious privileges led? They had not kept the law except in the letter, and not always that; they had not believed in Jehovah’s prophets but persecuted and killed them, the last and greatest of them having been the righteous One of whom they had just been the betrayers and murderers; and they had not yielded to but resisted the Holy Ghost. Was it not then idle to assert or suppose that they were the representatives of the true Jehovah-worship? Such was the spirit of Stephen’s address.

V. To what results it conducted.—

1. For his hearers.

(1) Conviction of guilt. They were cut to the heart, pierced to the quick, sawn asunder with inward pain because of inability to deny the truth of Stephen’s charges.
(2) Rage against their prisoner, at whom they snarled and snapped with their teeth like angry wolves, impatient to devour their prey, because his cutting invective, penetrating to their consciences, had brought their guilt to remembrance.
2. For himself. A violent death and a martyr’s crown—a large recompense for a short service; a brief shame followed by a long fame; a little loss and then an eternal gain (see on Acts 7:54).

Learn.—

1. That an eloquent and able defence is not always followed by a verdict of acquital.
2. That it does not always conduce to one’s personal safety to tell the truth.
3. That judges are not always open to the force of sound reasoning.
4. That opponents defeated in argument are seldom merciful.
5. That the sins of one age are often repeated in the next.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Acts 7:1. The Speech of Stephen.

I. A masterpiece of sacred eloquence.

II. A witness to the truth of Old Testament history.

III. A testimony to the sustaining power of religion.

IV. A proof of the reality of divine inspiration.

V. A noble vindication of Jesus Christ.

VI. A striking anticipation of Pauline universalism.

NOTE.—On the Historical Credibility of this Speech.—That this speech was not really uttered by Stephen, but freely composed by a late author (Baur, Zeller Weizsäcker, Holtzmann, and others) has been argued on the following grounds:

1. “That it takes so little notice of the special accusation against which Stephen defends himself” (Baur, Paul, his Life and Work, vol. i., p. 44). But in this Stephen only showed how entirely absorbed he was in vindicating his Master rather than in excusing himself. Besides, that his speech should have this appearance is a powerful indirect testimony to its genuineness, since its composer, had it not been Stephen, would have been sure to have avoided this appearance of incongruity.

2. That it contains historical inaccuracies, as, e.g., about the call of Abraham (Acts 7:2), the burial of the patriarchs (Acts 7:16), and the duration of the Egyptian bondage (Acts 7:6). But the so-called inaccuracies are susceptible of reasonable explanation; and, even if they were not, could only be urged against the inspiration of the speech, and not against its genuineness. If the composer of the speech could err, so also might Stephen, assuming that he was not inspired.

3. That it discovers verbal and material points of contact with the discourses of Peter and Paul (Overbeck, Weizsäcker, Supernatural Religion, iii., 145–178); but exactly this is what one should have expected from Stephen, who was the contemporary of these men, and believed the same facts and doctrines as they did.

4. That it goes far beyond the standpoint of Paul in teaching the spirituality of worship (Acts 7:38; Acts 7:48), and seems rather to belong to later Christian Alexandrinism (Holtzmann); but this is an altogether unwarranted assertion, since Paul quite as clearly teaches that God can be rightly worshipped only in the Spirit (Acts 17:24; Ephesians 2:21; Philippians 3:3).

5. That the riotous proceeding against Stephen renders it “improbable there was any transaction at all before the Sanhedrim” (Baur, i. 56). This, however, is simply turning criticism into ridicule; as if the Jewish Sanhedrim never overstepped its legitimate powers, and was always a law-abiding court. Credat Judæus!

6. That there is nothing to prevent the supposition that the historian put this speech into Stephen’s mouth (Baur, i. 56). But inasmuch as the speech is admitted to have “well suited the character of Stephen,” and to be “correctly stamped with his declared religious views,” it is much easier to suppose that Stephen himself delivered it than that Luke or another composed it.

7. That there is difficulty in understanding how the speech would or could be taken down in court. But even if Paul did not make notes of it at the time (Baumgarten), the memories of some who heard of it might not be unequal to the task of its preservation. Examples of remarkable memories are not wanting either in ancient or in modern times.