² For the history of the source-criticism of Acts see McGiffert, A. C., ‘The Historical Criticism of Acts in Germany’, in Foakes Jackson, F. J. and Lake, K., The Beginnings of Christianity, 1 (London: Macmillan, 1922), pp. 363–95Google Scholar: and especially the thorough study of Dupont, J., Les Sources du Lime des Actes: État de la Question (Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1960)Google Scholar, ET, Pond, K., The Sources of Acts: The Present Position (London: Herder and Herder, 1964)Google Scholar. The recent work of Gasque, W. W., A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles, Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese, 17 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1975)Google Scholar, does not stress the source-critical study of Acts in view of Dupont's contribution (cf. p. 275).

³ See Harnack, A., Die Apostelgeschichte (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908)Google Scholar, ET, Wilkinson, J. R., The Acts of the Apostles (London: Williams and Norgate, 1909), pp. 162–263Google Scholar. Harnack's theory of an Antioch source (which would include Acts 7) has been supported (though with considerable modifications) by Cerfaux, L., ‘La Composition de la Première Partie du Livre des Actes’, in Recueil Lucien Cerfaux, 2 (Gembloux: Duculot, 1954), pp. 63–91Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., ‘Untersuchungen zum Quellenproblem der Apostelgeschichte’, Z.N.W. 34 (1937), 205–21Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., ‘Zur Frage nach den Quellen der Apostelgeschichte’ in Higgins, A. J. B. (ed.), New Testament Essays (Manchester: University Press, 1959), pp. 68–80.Google Scholar

⁴ See the volume of collected essays, Dibelius, M., Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951)Google Scholar, ET, Greeven, H. (ed.), Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London: S.C.M., 1956)Google Scholar, especially the essay on ‘The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography’, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 138–91. Dibelius' approach has been applied in the commentaries of Haenchen, E., Die Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956)Google Scholar, ET, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971, from 14th ed. 1965)Google Scholar, and of Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1972)Google Scholar. For a summary of their views on sources see Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 24–34, 81–90Google Scholar, and Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 4–7Google Scholar. For a recent critical assessment of these scholars see Gasque, W. W., A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles, especially pages 201–50Google Scholar. For a reminder that this approach did not originate with Dibelius see Wilcox, M., ‘A Foreword to the Study of the Speeches in Acts’, in Neusner, J. (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975)Google Scholar, Part One: New Testament, p. 206.

⁵ For the history of research and for bibliography on Acts 7 see the monographs by Scharlemann, M. H., Stephen: A Singular Saint, Analecta Biblica 34 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968)Google Scholar and Kilgallen, J., The Stephen Speech: A Literary and Redactional Study of. Acts 7, 2–53, Analecta Biblica 67 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976).Google Scholar

⁶ Dibelius, M., Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, p. 168Google Scholar, cf. pp. 159–60, n. 49, and p. 176, n. 68; Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 51, 57, 59, 60Google Scholar. See also Foakes Jackson, F. J., ‘Stephen's Speech in Acts’, J.B.L. 49 (1930), 283–6Google Scholar; Trocmé, E., Le ‘Livre des Actes’ et l'Histoire (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1957), pp. 186–7.Google Scholar

⁷ Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, p. 167; cf. p. 169. Cf. Bacon, B. W., ‘Stephen's Speech: Its Argument and Doctrinal Relationship’, in Biblical and Semitic Studies (New York: Scribner's, 1901), pp. 213–29.Google Scholar

⁸ See Dibelius, M., Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 167–8Google Scholar. Cf. the surveys of scholarly discussion in Haenchen, , The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 286–9Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 57Google Scholar; Kilgallen, J., The Stephen Speech, pp. 6–10, 13, 14.Google Scholar

⁹ Stemberger, G., ‘Die Stephanusrede (Apg 7) und die jüdische Tradition’ in A. Fuchs, Jesus in der Verkündigung der Kirche, Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, Band 1 (Linz: 1976), p. 154Google Scholar, quotes the Spanish Jew Joseph Albo (fifteenth century) who adduced features of Acts 7 as evidence that the Apostles did not know their Torah! Calvin noted and discussed several of the discrepancies; see D. W., and Torrance, T. F. (eds.), The Acts of the Apostles, 1–13, Calvin's Commentaries (Edinburgh, London: Oliver and Boyd, 1965), pp. 171–216Google Scholar. For the most frequently noted differences see Rackham, R. B., The Acts of the Apostles, Westminster Commentary (London: Methuen, 1912), pp. 99–102Google Scholar; Cadbury, H. J., The Book of Acts in History (New York: Harper, 1955), pp. 102–6.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Harnack, A., The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 163Google Scholar. Cf. Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles, p. 81Google Scholar: ‘Luke…subjects his sources to a stylistic revision which renders their reconstitution impossible from his text alone…No sources can therefore be discerned in Acts by stylistic criteria.’ On the other hand, as Conzelmann points out, the relative unity of style does not mean that no sources have been used (Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 5).

¹¹ Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, p. 169, cf. p. 167.

¹² The Acts of the Apostles, p. 289.

¹³ Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 57.

¹⁴ Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel, Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963)Google Scholar, ET, Knight, H., Ogg, G., trans., The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity (London: Lutterworth, 1969), pp. 373–4.Google Scholar

¹⁵ München: Max Hueber Verlag, 1963.

¹⁶ See especially the analysis of the speech pp. 38–81, and the concluding discussion, pp. 81–6. Cf. also Stählin, G., Die Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), p. 112Google Scholar, who concedes the theoretical possibility of the use of source material but nevertheless holds that the speech from beginning to end is the work of Luke. Unfortunately in the most recent treatment of Acts 7 by J. Kilgallen the question of sources is set aside (see The Stephen Speech, p. 4).

¹⁷ ‘Stephen's Samaritan Background’, Appendix V of Munck, J., Albright, W. F., Mann, C. S., The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1967), pp. 285–300.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The contributions of Plumptre, Hammer, Kahle, Wilcox, Bowman, Scroggs and Gaston who published prior to and/or independently of Spiro are surveyed in Scobie, C. H. H., ‘The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity’, N. T. S. 19 (1972–1973), 391 fGoogle Scholar.; to the bibliography given there add de Robert, P., ‘Les Samaritains et le Nouveau Testament’, Études Théologiques et Religieuses, 45 (1970), 179–84.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Vilmar, E., Abulfathi Annales Samaritani (Gotha: 1865), p. 159Google Scholar. The text merely locates Stephen's house in Samaria. Cf. Lowy, S., The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), p. 52.Google Scholar

²⁰ See appendix vi, ‘“Hellenists” and “Hebrews” in Acts vi. i’, The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 301–4.

²¹ Stephen: A Singular Saint, pp. 21, 186. See further, Scobie, C. H. H., ‘The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity’, pp. 392–3.Google Scholar

²² ‘The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans’, N.T. 17 (1975), 174–5Google Scholar. Cf. pp. 188–9, where it is held that the set of readings which includes Deut. 18. 18–22 inserted after Ex. 20. 21 in the SP is not to be regarded as a sectarian addition but simply as an example of the expansionistic character of the text.

²³ ‘Philip the Evangelist and the Gospel of John’, Abr-Nahrain, 16 (1975–1976), 53–4Google Scholar. Cf. Scroggs, R., ‘The Earliest Hellenistic Christianity’, in Neusner, J. (ed.), Religions in Antiquity (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968), pp. 195–6.Google Scholar

²⁴ See C. H. H. Scobie, op. cit. pp. 393–4.

²⁵ See the surveys of and contributions to textual studies conveniently brought together in Cross, F. M., Talmon, S. (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1975).Google Scholar

²⁶ For a discussion of the Albright/Cross theory of three local texts (Palestinian, Egyptian, Babylonian) with special reference to the SP see Purvis, J. D., The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect, Harvard Semitic Monographs 2 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially pages 69–87. The basic point made here regarding Acts 7 is valid even if aspects of the Albright/Cross theory are open to question. Cf. the reservations expressed by Talmon, S., The Cambridge History of the Bible, 1 (Cambridge: University Press, 1970), pp. 193–8Google Scholar ( = Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, pp. 35–40); ‘The Textual Study of the Bible – A New Outlook’, Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, pp. 321–7. See also the discussion of ‘The Samaritan Pentateuch’ in Coggins, R. J., Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975), pp. 148–55Google Scholar; Pummer, R., ‘The Present State of Samaritan Studies: I’, J.S.S. 21 (1976), 42–7.Google Scholar

²⁷ ‘The Scrolls and the Old Testament Text’, in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, Freedman, D.N. and Greenfield, J. C., eds. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1969), p. 92.Google Scholar

²⁸ N.T.S. 12 (1975–1976), 441–3Google Scholar; quotation from page 443. Cf. ‘The Present State of Samaritan Studies: I’, J.S.S. 21 (1976), 43–4Google Scholar; ‘The Present State of Samaritan Studies: II’, J.S.S. 22 (1977), 41.Google Scholar

²⁹ C.B.Q. 39 (1977), 190–208.Google Scholar

³⁰ E. Richard, op. cit. pp. 204–5.

³¹ Op. cit. p. 207.

³² Westminster Theological Journal, 34 (1971–1972), 1–21Google Scholar. Mare deals only with the views of Spiro; Scharlemann's book is referred to in note 4 but not discussed.

³³ See especially pages 18–20.

³⁴ Mare holds that ‘from a conservative view of the inspiration of Scriptures, the text of Acts 7 certainly could not project a viewpoint which involved a falsification of the picture presented in the Jewish Hebrew Pentateuch…’ (‘Acts 7: Jewish or Samaritan?’, p. 5; italics mine). It may be legitimate, after weighing all the evidence, to conclude that there is no contradiction between Acts 7 and the Hebrew Pentateuch, but to begin by assuming this before examining the evidence is surely to forfeit the claim to be engaged in serious, critical, historical study.

³⁵ Above, note 9.

³⁶ Above, note: 19. See pp. 50–7.

³⁷ No attempt is made here to discuss the numerous arguments presented by Spiro many of which (e.g. the emphasis on Haran, or on Joseph) are not specifically Samaritan at all, though they might support the use of a Samaritan source if this could be definitely established on other grounds.

³⁸ On this see further p. 412.

³⁹ E.g. the call of Abraham in Mesopotamia rather than in Haran (Acts 7· 2), and the division of Moses' life into three periods of 40 years each (Acts 7· 23, 30, 36). The Acts 7· 2 tradition is known to Philo and Josephus; Stemberger, G., ‘Die Stephanusrede und die jüdische Tradition’, pp. 157–9Google Scholar, against Strack, H. L., Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1922–1961), 2, p. 666Google Scholar, shows that the tradition of Abraham being called twice, once in Mesopotamia and once in Haran, is known in some Rabbinic sources. The 40 year periodization of Moses’ life is well attested in the Rabbinic literature (Strack, Billerbeck, op. cit. ii, pp. 679–80). This type of minor elaboration or harmonization of the Biblical narrative was probably extremely widespread.

⁴⁰ The Pseudo-Eupolemos fragments are preserved in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 9, 17, 18Google Scholar. On the use of the LXX see Wacholder, B. Z., ‘Pseudo-Eupolemos’ Two Greek Fragments on the Life of Abraham', H.U.C.A. 34 (1963) 87 fGoogle Scholar. Walter, N., ‘Zu Pseudo-Eupolemos’, Klio, 43–45 (1965), 284–6Google Scholar, agrees on the use of the LXX but disputes Wacholder's contention that the writer also used the Hebrew text. Cf. also Kippenberg, H. G., Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramäischen Periode (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971), p. 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ See Gaster, M., The Samaritans: Their History, Doctrines and Literature (London: British Academy, 1925)Google Scholar, appendix iii, ‘The Samaritan Tenth Commandment’, pp. 185–90; Bowman, J., Samaritan Documents Relating to Their History, Religion and Life (Pittsburgh, Pa.: Pickwick, 1977), pp. 16–25.Google Scholar

⁴² Deut. 12. 5, etc. On the place of Gerizim in Samaritanism see also Macdonald, J., The Theology of the Samaritans (London: S.C.M., 1964), pp. 327–33.Google Scholar

⁴³ ‘Stephen's Samaritan Background’, pp. 286–7. Cf. Scharlemann, , Stephen: A Singular Saint, p. 38.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ It should be noted that Spiro's argument does not turn on the contention that τóπος is the standard Samaritan term for a shrine. Mare (‘Acts 7: Jewish or Samaritan in Character?’, p. 12) rightly points out that the term is used in this sense in the Old Testament and also in Acts 21. 28. Stemberger (‘Die Stephanusrede und die jüdische Tradition’, p. 159) considers that the expression έν τῷ τ⋯πῳ τοτᾠ is too general to support Spiro's hypothesis. Both these scholars seem to miss the main point. The reference to Shechem does not arise from the use of τέπος as such but from the particular conflation of passages which is made here. The expression is not general in Acts 7· 7 for it appears precisely in the context of the promise made by God to Abraham after his arrival in Palestine.

⁴⁵ Jubilees 46. 9; Test. Joseph 20; Josephus, Ant. II, i, 2. The tradition is not found in the Rabbinic literature (apart from one reference to the burial of Judah at Hebron), cf. Strack-Billerbeck, , Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 2, pp. 675–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Cf. the discussions in Jeremias, J., Heiligengräber in Jesu Umwelt (Göttingen, 1958), pp. 36–7Google Scholar; Kippenberg, H. G., Garizim und Synagoge, pp. 111–12.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ ‘Acts 7: Jewish or Samaritan in Character?’, p. 20.

⁴⁸ ‘Die Stephanusgeschichte und die jüdische Tradition’, pp. 162–5, 173. Cf. also Cadbury, H. J., The Book of Acts in History, pp. 104–6Google Scholar. Lowy (The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis, p. 53) falls back on the weak but common view that some sort of confusion has occurred. Cf. Cerfaux, L., Dupont, J., Les Actes des Apótres (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1964), p. 78Google Scholar; Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles, p. 280Google Scholar (‘the text is cited from memory’); Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 53Google Scholar. For other possible explanations see Kilgallen, J., The Stephen Speech, pp. 58–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See the discussion in Simon, M., St Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (London: Longmans, Green, 1958), pp. 87–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Macdonald, J., The Samaritan Chronicle No. II, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 107 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969), p. 93Google Scholar, cf. p. 86. Whatever the date of the Chronicle it certainly preserves old traditions of the Samaritan interpretation of Biblical history.

⁵¹ Op.cit. pp. 129 f.

⁵² Op. cit. pp. 146; Text, p. 63.

⁵³ No reference has been made to Spiro's exegesis of Acts 7. 46 according to which David is here presented as seeking to build not a dwelling place for ‘the Mighty One of Jacob’ (Ps. 132. 5 MT) or for ‘the God of Jacob’ (lxx), i.e. a sanctuary, but ‘a dwelling place for the house of Jacob’, i.e. a secular capital at Jerusalem (Spiro, A., ‘Stephen's Samaritan Background’, pp. 287–8)Google Scholar. This raises the question of the non-Pentateuchal quotations which are found in the last part of the speech. Spiro also argues for Samaritan influence in the quotation of Amos 5· 25–7 at Acts 7· 42 b, 43 and of Isa. 66. 1, 2 at Acts 7· 49, 50, while Scharlemann suggests a similar influence in the citing of Jer. 7· 18 at Acts 7· 42 (see Scobie, C. H. H., ‘The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity’, p. 395Google Scholar). In none of these cases is the evidence of Samaritan influence very convincing. But the main point is that a major distinguishing feature of the Samaritans is their rejection of the prophetic canon (see further, note 55). Acts 7· 46 cannot therefore be assigned to the Samaritan source.

⁵⁴ See the survey in Kilgallen, J., The Stephen Speech, pp. 17–21Google Scholar. Cf. the view of Davies, W. D., The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Los Angeles: University of California, 1974), pp. 267–71.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ While the Samaritans did know and use post-Pentateuchal historical books (Chronicle II uses Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles), there is no evidence at any period of their use of the Psalms or Prophets. The Dositheans are said to have had books other than the Torah but these were sectarian writings ascribed to Dositheus himself: cf. Origen, Commentary on John, 13· 27; Fath, Abu'l, Vilmar edition, pp. 82, 151 fGoogle Scholar. On the reference to the book of ‘the children of the prophet’, see Isser, S. J., The Dositheans: A Samaritan Sect in Late Antiquity (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), p. 76Google Scholar, note a. Dositheus is specifically said to have rejected the prophets; see S. J. Isser, op. cit. pp. 35, 117.

⁵⁶ The reference to angels is not intended to downgrade the Law (as it is in Gal. 3. 19, Heb. 2. 2). See Simon, M., St Stephen and the Hellenists, pp. 47–8.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ On the expectation of the Moses-like Prophet see Jeremias, J., Μωϋσ⋯ς T.D.N.T. 4, pp. 848–73Google Scholar; Teeple, H., The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet, J.B.L. Monograph Series 10 (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1957)Google Scholar; Hahn, F., The Titles of Jesus in Christology, appendix, ‘The Eschatological Prophet’, pp. 352–406Google Scholar; Longenecker, R. N., The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London: S.C.M., 1970), pp. 32–8Google Scholar. Some of the messianic pretenders described by Josephus exhibit Mosaic features; Philo, De spec. leg. i. 65 is a possible reference; the absence of an eschatological interpretation of Deut. 18. 15, 18 in Rabbinic material from the early Christian centuries may be due to a reaction to Christian claims.

⁵⁸ I O.S ix. ii; 4 Q Test. 5–8.

⁵⁹ See Meeks, W. A., The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967), pp. 246–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kippenberg, H. G., Garizim und Synagoge, ‘Der Prophet wie Mose’, pp. 306–327Google Scholar; Bergmeier, R., ‘Zur Frühdatierung samaritanischer Theologumena’, J.S.J. 5 (1974), 142–6Google Scholar. The insertion of Deut. 5. 28 b, 29, Deut. 18. 18–22, Deut. 5. 30, 31, after Ex. 20. 21 in the SP is generally taken to indicate the centrality of the expectation of the Moses-like Prophet in Samaritanism. The discovery of this form of text at Qumran has generated considerable discussion. Whatever the origin of the conflated passage (cf. Purvis, J. D., ‘The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans’, pp. 188–9Google Scholar), Deut. 18. 15, 18 certainly formed the basis for a Samaritan eschatological expectation by New Testament times. While it is true that this expectation is not exclusively Samaritan (cf. R. Bergmeier, op. cit. pp. 145–6) it is clearly attested only at Qumran and in Samaritan circles. At Qumran the Prophet is subordinate (as forerunner?) to the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel; possibly he was identified with the Teacher of Righteousness. In any case he was not the major eschatological figure. Dositheus in the early first century A.D. was hailed as the Moses-like Prophet by his Samaritan followers; see Isser, S. J., The Dositheans: A Samaritan Sect in Late Antiquity, pp. 127–50, 163Google Scholar(cf. also ‘Dositheus, Jesus and a Moses Aretalogy’, in Neusner, J. (ed.). Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, part 4 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), 167–89Google Scholar). Kippenberg, (Garizim und Synagoge, pp. 314–21)Google Scholar has argued cogently that the strong polemic against belief in the Moses-like prophet found in Memar Marqah is directed against the Dositheans; he also holds that the concepts of the Taheb and of the Moses-like prophet were originally quite separate.

⁶⁰ Feldman, L. H., Josephus, 10, The Loeb Classical Library (London: Heinmann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1965), p. 61.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Meeks, W. A., The Prophet-King, p. 248Google Scholar; Kippenberg, H. G., Garizim und Synagoge, ‘Der verborgene Miškän’, pp. 234–54Google Scholar, on which see the criticisms of Bergmeier, R., ‘Zur Frühdatierung samaritanischer Theologumena’, pp. 134–41Google Scholar; Collins, M. F., “The Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Traditions’, J.S.J. in (1972), 97–116Google Scholar (on which see Zeron, A., ‘Einige Bemerkungen zu M. F.Collins “The Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Traditions”’, J.S.J. 4 (1973), 165–8Google Scholar). Despite certain problems raised by the Josephus passage Collins concludes that ‘the Samaritan prophet figure in the Josephus story was viewed as the eschatological prophet like Moses’ (op. cit. p. 115).

⁶² J. Bowman notes that references to Gerizim as the site of the true sanctuary and to Samaritan messianic expectations are closely linked in John 4. 16–26. See Samaritan Documents, pp. 21–2.

⁶³ See Schrenk, G., δíκη, etc., T.D.N.T. 2, pp. 186–9Google Scholar. For a Mosaic understanding of the term see Descamps, A., Les Justes et la Justice dans les évangiles et le christianisme primitif (Gembloux: Duculot, 1950)) pp. 74–9Google Scholar; Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scribner's, 1965), pp. 47–8.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See, for example, Bacon, B. W., ‘Stephen's Speech’, pp. 247–52Google Scholar; Rackham, R. B., The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 93–4, 102–6Google Scholar; Dupont, J., Etudes sur Les Actes des Apôtres (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1967), pp. 250–3Google Scholar; Hanson, R. P. C., The Acts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), pp. 95–102Google Scholar; Stählin, G., Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 112Google Scholar; Kilgallen, J., The Stephen Speech, pp. 21–4, 97.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ If the original reading at Acts 7· 46 is ‘a habitation for the house of Jacob' (see textual apparatus) then the point made by Spiro (note 53 above) may be true of the Christian tract: the verse refers to David's establishment of Jerusalem as his capital and thus disassociates him from the building of the Temple which the tract so violently condemns. Simon, M. (St Stephen and the Hellenists, p. 51)Google Scholar and Bihler, J. (Die Stephanusgeschichte, p. 74)Google Scholar, who both wrote before Spiro, and Kilgallen, who ignores Spiro (The Stephen Speech, p. 30), are quite wrong in characterizing the reading τῷ οἴκῳ 'ικώβ as meaningless. For another possible meaning see Klijn, A. F. J., ‘Stephen's Speech-Acts vii. 2–53’, N.T.S. 11 (1957), 25–31Google Scholar. On Stephen's attitude to the Temple see also Simon, M., ‘Saint Stephen and the Jerusalem Temple’, J.E.H. 2 (1951), 127–42.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ The Titles of Jesus in Christology, p. 374.

⁶⁷ See below, p. 418.

⁶⁸ The Gospel opens in the Jerusalem Temple; there Jesus is presented to the Lord, and there at age twelve he is discovered in his ‘Father's house’. At the end of his ministry Jesus teaches daily in the Temple (Luke 19. 47, 20. 1, 21. 5, 37, 38), and there the Gospel closes (Luke 24· 53) with the disciples continually blessing God. In the opening chapters of Acts we find the disciples attending the Temple day by day (Acts 2. 46) and Peter and John going there at the hour of prayer (Acts 3· 1 f.). As late as Acts 21. 20–6 Luke depicts Paul as an observing Jew participating in the Temple cult and taking part in a procedure which included the presentation of an offering (Acts 21. 26). Luke makes it clear that the accusation against Paul of taking a Gentile into the Temple was a false accusation; Paul in fact carefully respected the sanctity of the holy place.

⁶⁹ See the discussion in O'Neill, J. C., The Theology of Acts in Its Historical Setting (London: S.P.C.K., 2 ed., 1970), especially pp. 72–6Google Scholar. O'Neill emphasizes the extent to which Stephen's speech as it now stands is consistent with the theology of history which is developed throughout Acts, but he also holds that ‘Luke is indebted to Hellenistic Jewish sources (p. 79; see the whole discussion in’ chapter 3, pp. 77–99). Cf. also Bihler, J., Die Stephanusgeschichte, pp. 161–78.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Stephen: A Singular Saint, p. 69; cf. p. 40. B. W. Bacon appears to have been the first to observe this feature of the speech; see ‘Stephen's Speech’, pp. 248–9.

⁷¹ This is precluded by the use of the Samaritan source, and the somewhat complex process of adaptation and reinterpretation of the source material which indicates a period of study and of literary activity; this is why we have referred to a ‘tract’ rather than a ‘speech’.

⁷² ‘Stephen's Samaritan Background’, pp. 285, 298.

⁷³ Stephen, : A Singular Saint, pp. 21, 53, 186.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See Scobie, C. H. H., ‘The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity’, pp. 398–400.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See Bacon, B. W., ‘Stephen's Speech’, pp. 230–6Google Scholar. The extent of Lucan vocabulary and style in Acts 7 has been emphasized especially by Duterme, G., Le Vocabulaire du discours d'Étienne (Louvain: 1950)Google Scholar whose conclusions are summarized and evaluated by Dupont, J., Études sur les Actes des Apôtres, pp. 252–3Google Scholar; and by Bihler, J., Die Stephanusgeschichte, pp. 38–86Google Scholar. See most recently Kilgallen, J., The Stephen Speech, appendix, ‘Some Literary Traits of the Speech of Stephen’, pp. 121–63Google Scholar. Kilgallen's main contention is that ‘the speech as we have it before us is so thoroughly in the style, structures and vocabulary of the rest of Acts and of Luke's Gospel that we can say that the author of the rest of Acts was the author of this speech’ (p. 163). On this basis Kilgallen, in his analysis, treats the entire speech as a unity, but he does not deny that Luke ‘may have worked over an earlier type of speech’ (p. 121). Those who enumerate ‘Lucan characteristics’ sometimes forget that Luke must have drawn some of his vocabulary from his sources as well as imposing it on them. For example, Bihler argues that the use of the term θλἴψις in 7· 10,11 is typically Lucan (Die Stephanusgeschichte, pp. 50–1). But θλ⋯ψις does not occur at all in Luke's Gospel, nor in Acts prior to this point. It is used in editorial summaries at Acts 11. 19 and 14. 22, and in a speech ascribed to Paul at Acts 20. 23. This evidence does not necessarily show that the word is typically Lucan and that its use in Acts 7· 10 therefore indicates that Stephen's Speech was freely composed by Luke. An equally plausible explanation would be that Luke found the term in the source he was using in Acts 7 and thereafter incorporated it into his own vocabulary, employing it on two or three occasions where it seemed to be particularly appropriate.

⁷⁶ Cf. G. B. Shaw's reference to Stephen as ‘a quite intolerable young speaker…who delivered an oration to the council, in which he first inflicted on them a tedious sketch of the history of Israel, with which they were presumably as well acquainted as he…boring and annoying them to the utmost bearable extremity…’. See ‘Androcles and the Lion: Preface on the Prospects of Christianity’, Bernard Shaw: Collected Plays with their Prefaces (London, Sydney, Toronto: Max Reinhardt, The Bodley Head, 1972), 4, p. 546.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ ‘The Earliest Hellenistic Christianity’, p. 183.

⁷⁸ Op. cit. p. 197.

⁷⁹ Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, p. 160.

⁸⁰ Dibelius, M., Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, p. 161Google Scholar. For other examples of the technique see, for example, Acts 10. 44, 23. 7.

⁸¹ See especially Descamps, A., Les Justes et la Justice dans les évangiles et le christianisme primitif, pp. 69–81Google Scholar. His suggestions have been followed up by Robinson, J. A. T., ‘The Most Primitive Christology of All?’, in Twelve New Testament Studies (London: S.C.M., 1962), pp. 149–51Google Scholar; and by Zehnle, R. F., Peter's Pentecost Discourse: Tradition and Reinterpretation in Peter's Speeches of Acts 2 and 3, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, 15 (Nashville/New York: Abingdon Press, 1971), pp. 75–8Google Scholar. Bihler, , Die Stephanusgeschichte, pp. 104–11Google Scholar, notes and discusses several of the parallels between Acts 3 and Acts 7 as part of his argument that the themes of Stephen's Speech are typically Lucan; he fails to ask why these themes are found only in Acts 3 and Acts 7.

⁸² See Wilcox, M., The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), pp. 33 fGoogle Scholar., 53, 160.

⁸³ Recognitions i. 36, 40, 43, 56, 57.

⁸⁴ Cf. above, p. 412.

⁸⁵ Cf. Descamps, A., Les Justes et la Justice dans les évangiles et le christianisme primitif, p. 70Google Scholar; Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 48.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ The designation παīς (3· 13, 26) is not found in Acts 7. The only other use in Acts is at 4· 25, 27, 30, where it is associated with David and used in a liturgical context. (Cf. Luke 1. 69; Didache 9. On the different use of παīς in Acts 3 and 4 see Moule, C. F. D., ‘The Christology of Acts’, in Studies in Luke–Acts, pp. 169–70.) There is very little in Acts 3 to suggest that παīς should be linked with Is. 53; it is more natural, in view of the context, to link the title with Moses.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See Schniewind, J., ⋯γγελíα, etc., T.D.N.T. 1, p. 73.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Allowance must be made for Lucan editing. In particular, Acts 3· 12, 16 are editorial links, designed to help fit 3. 13–26 into its present context. The introduction of the term χριστóς in 3· 18., 20 may be due to Luke.

⁸⁹ The suggestion of Stahlin, G., Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 113Google Scholar that the missing ending would have proclaimed that salvation is now offered to the Gentiles is totally unconvincing.

⁹⁰ These are the only two uses of ⋯ρνεīσθαι in this sense in Acts. Cf. Schlier, H., ⋯ρνέομαι, Kittel, G. (ed.), T.D.N.T. 1, pp. 469–71.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Cf. above, p. 414.

⁹² Stephen: A Singular Saint, p. 69.

⁹³ ⋯ναστήσας echoes 5· 22 – προφήτην μīν ⋯ναστήσει κ⋯ριος ⋯ θε⋯ς and therefore refers here not to the resurrection, but to the incarnation or the beginning of Jesus' ministry; cf. Bruce, F. F., The Acts of the Apostles (London: Tyndale Press, 1952), p. 114Google Scholar; Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 209–10Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 41Google Scholar; against Dupont, J., Études sur Les Actes des Apôtres, p. 249.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ I.e. the blessing promised to Abraham, see 3· 25, ένευλογηθήσονται. This reference would have rounded off the Christian tract by concluding, as it began, with a reference to Abraham.

⁹⁵ See Scobie, C. H. H., ‘The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity’, pp. 401–8Google Scholar; ‘North and South: Tension and Reconciliation in Biblical History’, in McKay, R. J., Miller, J. F. (ed.), Biblical Studies in Honour of William Barclay (London: Collins, 1976), pp. 87–98Google Scholar; ‘New Directions in the Study of the Fourth Gospel’, Studies in Religion I Sciences Religieuses, 6 (1976–1977), 185–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. the views of Cullmann, O. most recently stated in Der johanneische Kreis: Sein Platz in Spätjudentum, in der Jüngerschaft Jesu und im Urchristentum (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1975)Google Scholar; and in ‘Von Jesus zum Stephanuskreis und zum Johannesevangelium’, in Ellis, E. E., Grasser, E. (ed.), Jesus und Paulus, Festschrift für Werner Georg Kummel zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), pp. 44–56.Google Scholar