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
emancipation of the Church from Jewish exclusiveness had already either
commenced or been clearly anticipated. 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 pass 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 Hellenists 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 God. 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, anticipating 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 Stephanus 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 analysis,(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 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
{150}
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.
{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 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,
{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 principal 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 God. 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 God." Jesus says: "Henceforth
shall the Son of Man be seated on the right hand of the power of
God."(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 circumstances 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 analogies
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 asserting 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 assume the possibility of an intention to do so; and
indeed it could not, under the circumstances, 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 assert 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.
Before examining the linguistic peculiarities of the speech, we may very
briefly point out that, in the course of the historical survey, many
glaring contradictions of the statements of the Old Testament occur.(4)
Stephen says
{155}
(vs. 2, 3) that the order to Abraham to leave his country was given to
him in Mesopotamia before he dwelt in Haran; but, according to Genesis
(xii. 1 ff) the call is given whilst he was living in Haran. The speech
(v. 4) represents Abraham leaving Haran after the death of his father,
but this is in contradiction to Genesis, according to which(1) Abraham
was 75 when he left Haran. Now, as he was born when his father Terah was
70,(2) and Terah lived 205 years,(3) his father was only 145 at the
time indicated, and afterwards lived 60 years. In v. 5 it is stated that
Abraham had no possession in the promised land, not even so much as to
set his foot on; but, according to Genesis,(4) he bought the field of
Ephron in Machpelah. It is said (v. 14) that Jacob went down into Egypt
with 75 souls, whereas, in the Old Testament, it is repeatedly said that
the number was 70.(5) In v. 16, it is stated that Jacob was buried
in Schechem in a sepulchre bought by Abraham of the sons of Emmor in
Schechem, whereas in Genesis(6) Jacob is said to have been buried in
Machpelah; the sepulchre in Schechem, in which
{159}
the bones of Joseph were buried, was not bought by Abraham, but
by Jacob.(1) Moses is described (v. 22) as mighty in words, but in
Exodus(2) he is said to be the very reverse, and Aaron in fact is
sent with him to speak words for him. These are some of the principal
variations. It used to be argued that such mistakes were mere errors
of memory, natural in a speech delivered under such circumstances and
without preparation,(3) and that they are additional evidence of
its authenticity, inasmuch as it is very improbable that a writer
deliberately composing such a speech could have committed them. It is
very clear, however, that the majority of these are not errors of memory
at all, but either the exegesis prevailing at the time amongst learned
Jews, or traditions deliberately adopted, of which many traces are
elsewhere found.(4)
The form of the speech is closely similar to other speeches found in the
same work. We have already in passing pointed out the analogy of parts
of it to the address of Peter in Solomon's porch, but the speech of Paul
at Antioch bears a still closer resemblance to it, and has been called
"a mere echo of the speeches of Peter and Stephen."(5) We must refer the
reader to our general comparison of the two speeches of Peter and Paul
in question,(6) which sufficiently showed, we think,
{160}
that they were not delivered by independent speakers, but on the
contrary that they are nothing more than compositions by the author of
the Acts. These addresses which are such close copies of each other, are
so markedly cast in the same mould as the speech of Stephen, that they
not only confirm our conclusions as to their own origin, but intensify
suspicions of its authenticity. It is impossible, without reference to
the speeches themselves, to shew how closely that of Paul at Antioch is
traced on the lines of the speech of Stephen, and this resemblance
is much greater than can be shown by mere linguistic examination.
The thoughts correspond where the words differ. There is a constant
recurrence of words, however, even where the sense of the passages is
not the same, and the ideas in both bear the stamp of a single mind. We
shall not attempt fully to contrast these discourses here, for it would
occupy too much space, and we therefore content ourselves with giving
a few illustrations, begging the reader to examine the speeches
themselves. [------]
{161}
[------]
{162}
[------]
It is argued that the speech of Stephen bears upon it
{163}
the stamp of an address which was actually delivered.(1) We are not able
to discover any special indication of this. Such an argument, at the
best, is merely the assertion of personal opinion, and cannot have any
weight. It is quite conceivable that an oration actually spoken might
lose its spontaneous character in a report, and on the other hand that
a written composition might acquire oratorical reality from the skill of
the writer. It would indeed exhibit great want of literary ability if
a writer, composing a speech which he desires to represent as having
actually been spoken, altogether failed to convey some impression of
this. To have any application to the present case, however, it must not
only be affirmed that the speech of Stephen has the stamp of an address
really spoken, but that it has the character of one delivered under such
extraordinary circumstances, without premeditation and in the midst of
tumultuous proceedings. It cannot, we think, be reasonably asserted
that a speech like this is peculiarly characteristic of a man suddenly
arrested by angry and excited opponents, and hurried before a council
which, at its close, rushes upon him and joins in stoning him. Unless
the defence attributed to Stephen be particularly characteristic of
this, the argument in question falls to the ground. On the contrary, if
the speech has one feature more strongly marked than another, it is
the deliberate care with which the points referred to in the historical
survey are selected and bear upon each other, and the art with which the
climax is attained. In showing, as we have already done, that the speech
betrays the handy work of the Author of the Acts, we have to a large
extent disposed of any claim
{164}
to peculiar individuality in the defence, and the linguistic analysis
which we shall now make will conclusively settle the source of the
composition. We must point out here in continuation that, as in the rest
of the work, all the quotations in the speech are from the Septuagint,
and that the author follows that version even when it does not fairly
represent the original.(1)
We may now proceed to analyse the language of the whole episode from
vi. 9 to the end of the seventh chapter, in order to discover what
linguistic analogy it bears to the rest of the Acts and to the third
Synoptic, which for the sake of brevity we shall simply designate
"Luke." With the exception of a very few words in general use, every
word employed in the section will be found in the following analysis,
based upon Bruder's 'Concordance,'(2) and which is arranged in the order
of the verses, although for greater clearness the whole is divided into
categories.
We shall commence with a list of the words in this section which are not
elsewhere used in the New Testament. They are as follows:--[------],
vi. 11; [------]t vi. 12; [------], vii. 16;(3) [------], vii. 19, but
[------], occurs several times in Acts, see below, vii. 21; [------],
vii. 24; [------], vii. 26; [------], vii. 45, this word, which is
common amongst
{165}
Greek writers,(1) is used in lxx. 2 Chron. xxxi. 12; [------], vii. 52.
These nine words are all that can strictly be admitted as [------], but
there are others, which, although not found in any other part of the
Acts or of the Gospel, occur in other writings of the New Testament, and
which must here be noted. [------], vi. 11, occurring 1 Tim. i. 13, 2
Tim. iii. 2, 2 Pet. iL 11, Rev. xiii. 5; [------], however, is used four
times in Acts, thrice in Luke, and frequently elsewhere, and [------] in
Luke v. 21. [------] vi. 13, used Rev. ii. 2, xxi. 8; [------], vi. 14,
Rom. i. 23, ' 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52, Gal. iv. 20, Heb. i. 12, almost purely
a Pauline word; [------], vii. 5, elsewhere fourteen times; [------],
vii. 16, also Gal. i. 6, Heb. vii. 12, xi. 5 twice (lxx. Gen. v. 24),
Jude 4; [------], vii. 24, also 2 Pet. ii. 7; [------], vii. 26, also
John vi. 52, 2 Tim. ii. 24, James iv. 2; [------], vii. 38, also Rom.
iii. 2, Heb. v. 12, 1 Pet. iv. 11; [------], vii. 39, also 2 Cor. ii. 9,
Phil. ii. 8; [------], vii. 53, also Rom. xiii. 2, cf. Gal. iii. 19, but
the writer makes use of [------], see vii. 44, below; [------], vii. 58,
also Rom. xiii. 12, Eph. iv. 22, 25, Col. iii. 8, Heb. xii. 1, James
i. 21, 1 Pet, ii. 1. If we add these ten words to the preceding, the
proportion of [------] is by no means excessive for the 67 verses,
especially when the peculiarity of the subject is considered, and it is
remembered that the number of words employed in the third Gospel, for
instance, which are not elsewhere found, greatly exceeds that of the
other Gospels, and that this linguistic richness is characteristic of
the author.
There is another class of words which may now be
{166}
dealt with: those which, although not elsewhere found either in the
Acts or Gospel, are derived from the Sep-tuagint version of the Old
Testament. The author makes exclusive use of that version, and in
the historical survey, of which so large a portion of the speech is
composed, his mind very naturally recalls its expressions even where he
does not make direct quotations, but merely gives a brief summary of its
narratives. In the following list where words are not clearly taken from
the Septuagint version(1) of the various episodes referred to, the reasons
shall be stated:--
{167}
We shall now, by way of disposing of them, take the words which require
little special remark, but are used as well in the rest of the Acts and
in the Gospel as in other writings of the New Testament:-- [------]
{168}
[------]
{169}
[------]
We shall now give the words which may either be regarded as
characteristic of the author of the Acts and Gospel, or the use of which
is peculiar or limited to him:-- [------]
{170}
[------]
{171}
[------]
{172}
[------]
To this very remarkable list of words we have still to add a number of
expressions which further betray the author of the Acts and Gospel:--
{173}
[------]
{174}
[------]
{175}
[------]
It is impossible, we think, to examine this analysis, in which we might
fairly have included other points which we have passed over, without
feeling the certain conviction that the speech of Stephen was composed
by the author of the rest of the Acts of the Apostles. It may not be
out of place to quote some remarks of Lekebusch at the close of an
examination of the language of the Acts in general, undertaken for the
purpose of ascertaining the literary characteristics of the book,
which, although originally having no direct reference to this episode
in particular, may well serve to illustrate our own results:--"An
unprejudiced critic must have acquired the conviction from the foregoing
linguistic examination that, throughout the whole of the Acts of the
Apostles, and partly also the
{176}
Gospel, the same style of language and expression generally prevails,
and therefore that our book is an original work, independent of written
sources on the whole, and proceeding from a single pen. For when the
same expressions are everywhere found, when a long row of words which
only recur in the Gospel and Acts, or comparatively only very seldom
in other works of the New Testament, appear equally in all parts, when
certain forme of words, peculiarities of word-order, construction
and phraseology, indeed even whole sentences, recur in the different
sections, a compilation out of documents by different earlier writers
can no longer be thought of, and it is 'beyond doubt, that we have to
consider our writing as the work of a single author, who has impressed
upon it the stamp of a distinct literary style' (Zeller, Theol.
Jahrb..1851, p. 107). The use of written sources is certainly not
directly excluded by this, and probably the linguistic peculiarities,
of which some of course exist in isolated sections of our work, may
be referred to this. But as these peculiarities consist chiefly of
[------], which may rather be ascribed to the richness of the author's
vocabulary than to his talent for compilation, and in comparison with
the great majority of points of agreement almost disappear, we must from
the first be prepossessed against the theory that our author made use
of written sources, and only allow ourselves to be moved to such a
conclusion by further distinct phenomena in the various parts of our
book, especially as the prologue of the Gospel, so often quoted for the
purpose, does not at all support it. But in any case, as has already
been remarked, _the_ opinion that, in the Acts of the Apostles, the
several parts are strung together almost without
{177}
alteration, is quite irreconcilable with the result of our linguistic
examination. Zeller rightly says:--'Were the author so dependent a
compiler, the traces of such a proceeding must necessarily become
apparent in a thorough dissimilarity of language and expression. And
this dissimilarity would be all the greater if his sources, as in that
case we could scarcely help admitting, belonged to widely separated
spheres as regards language and mode of thought. On the other hand, it
would be altogether inexplicable that, in all parts of the work, the
same favourite expressions, the same turns, the same peculiarities
of vocabulary and syntax should meet us. This phenomenon only becomes
conceivable when we suppose that the contents of our work were brought
into their present form by one and the same person, and that the work
as it lies before us was not merely _compiled_ by some one, but was also
_composed_ by him.'"(1)
Should an attempt be made to argue that, even if it be conceded that
the language is that of the Author of Acts, the sentiments may be those
actually expressed by Stephen, it would at once be obvious that such
an explanation is not only purely arbitrary and incapable of proof, but
opposed to the facts of the case. It is not the language only which can
be traced to the Author of the rest of the Acts but, as we have shown,
the whole plan of the speech is the same as that of others in different
parts of the work. Stephen speaks exactly as Peter does before him and
Paul at a later period. There is just that amount of variety which a
writer of not unlimited resources can introduce to express the views of
{178}
different men under different circumstances, but there is so much which
is nevertheless common to them all, that community of authorship cannot
be denied. On the other hand, the improbabilities of the narrative, the
singular fact that Stephen is not mentioned by the Apostle Paul, and the
peculiarities which may be detected in the speech itself receive their
very simple explanation when linguistic analysis so clearly demonstrates
that, whatever small nucleus of fact may lie at the basis of the
episode, the speech actually ascribed to the martyr Stephen is nothing
more than a later composition put into his mouth by the Author of the
Acts.