bacht

Almost the whole book of Acts is about Paul heroically defying nasty Jews in synagogues around the eastern empire. The Stephen story sets up Saul as accomplice to enemies of 'The Way'. Then his conversion occurs, and with help from those nice Romans and their client rulers Paul brings the good news to hungry gentiles, and utimately to the eternal city itself.

No need to wreck a good story with inconvenient facts

Jayrok

I agree. I should have noted that I find the story fictional up front. I was just wondering how such a question would be answered, typically, if it was assumed that the story was historically true. Thanks for your comments.

andrewcriddle

If one finds the absence of the Roman Governor from the Stephen account a real difficulty then one possibility would be that the death of Stephen occurred in 36 CE after Pontius Pilate was sacked by Vitellius and before Marullus was appointed in 37 CE.

I know Josephus says that however Marcellus (of whom no specific acts are recorded) is widely regarded as a caretaker with very limited powers.

NB dating the death of Stephen in 36 CE causes real problems for the chronology of Acts and the Pauline letters but probably not insuperable ones.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

It is not what you think was blasphemy it is what is actually in the story.

In the Jesus story, after he mentioned " I am, and Ye shall see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven", then the high priest and all condemned him to be guilty of death.

In Acts similar words were said by Stephen about Jesus causing him to be stoned to death.

Acts 7:55-58 - And in Church History by Eusebius, James the Just was supposedly stoned and clubbed to death for uttering similar sentiments about Jesus.

These are some of the supposedly LAST words of James the Just.

"Church History" 2.23.12-13 So it is clear that any statement about Jesus sitting or standing on right hand of Power was considered by the authors of their Jesus stories as blasphemy.

It would appear that Jesus had to be handed over to the Gentiles for execution so that the SCRIPTURES might be fulfilled.

Luke 18:31-33 -

Elijah

So are you reading this story like a Greek myth where Jesus is like Zeus’ kid, instead of a Jewish story of a messiah sacrificing his life? It looks to me like it’s about a messiah claimant not the biological offspring of a genie god. If that is your interpretation of the story then it’s not surprising it sounds like a myth though.

Yes if he was a simple prophet just predicting the end was near then they probably could have gotten away with stoning him but since he was someone the people were thinking could be the messiah they had to worry about the backlash from the people if they didn’t get rid of him carefully.
In Matt Mark and Luke they ask him if he is the Christ, which is a title they are using in the story for the expected messiah. It’s only in Mark does he clearly say so and not that they say so. The son of god or son of the blessed isn’t saying that he is the biological offspring of a superstitious understanding of god; it’s a title they are using for the Messiah which they were questioning him about.
You can use what texts you want and limit the conversation as you see fit IMO… it’s your conversation. I used John because you used John earlier but if you don’t want to use it, even though I’m unsure exactly why, that’s fine. Like when I was talking with Toto, I tried to stick with Mark because of previous conversations moving to where priority lies and what is credible. It’s too off topic so I just try to work within the parameters of the OP if I can but in this case I thought John was on the table. But I am totally confused on what you are saying here or what the complaint actually is.

aa5874

But, your post is just mere speculation. Jesus was no ordinary man, he was a God/MAN, offspring of the Holy Ghost.

And, it is already stated in the Jesus stories that Jesus was crucified or handed over to the Gentiles to be executed so that the "scriptures might be fulfilled.

Luke 18:31-33 - But, Jesus in the Synoptics exclaimed that the Sanhedrin would see him coming in the clouds, (perhaps like Superman) sitting or standing on the right hand of POWER.

Mt 26:64 - Jesus was no ordinary dude, he could SIT ON CLOUDS.

arnoldo

The area of Jerusalem was under direct Roman control and during passover would have had a roman prefect, Pontius Pilate, ensuring law/order of the city during the alleged events described in the gospels. Once Archelueus was banished to Gaul his territory (which included Jerusalem) was assimilated by the Roman Province located in Syria (dark green on map below). Antipas remained in control of the Galilean area and Philip controlled the other areas. On the following map the light green area (which includes Jerusalem) was transfered from Archeleus to the Roman province in Syria.

Solo

There is a big debate going on 'Jesus Mysteries' forum about whether Pilate would have ventured into Jerusalem during a major festival with the small troop of auxilliaries he commanded in Judea from his governor's seat in Caesarea Maritima. There is no record indicating that he had a command of any of the legions in Syria. The skepticism centers around the gospel report of rioting in the city (Barabbas) which would make Pontius Pilate leery of getting trapped in Jerusalem with an army in the manner of Sabinus (who commanded a whole legion) not long before him (Josephus Ant. xvii, 10).

Jiri

Jayrok

I'm aware of the regional assignments after the death of King Herod, among his sons. Not sure what it has to do with the conversation.

arnoldo

Juding by Pilate's actions before and after the events depicted in the gospels he wouldn't hesitate to venture into Jerusalem during a major festival. Pontius Pilate had earlier sent troops into Jerusalem bringing graven images of the emperor. Of course jews objected to this and Pilate didn't hesitate to send troops. Pilate then raided the jewish treasury and once jewish mobs objected he sent soldiers disguised as civilians to beat up the crowd. During the passover account described in the gospels Pilate certainly had the power to deny the Sanhedrin's request to execute a prisoner. However, the gospels portray Jesus accused of being a King and that there was no king but Caesar. From there the outcome inevitable. The Sandhedrin, empowered by the enforcement of their will may've be less hesitatant to execute the followers of Jesus after the execution of their leader. Pilate continued to not hesitate to use troops whenever necessary but after smashing a particular bloody uprising in Samaria he was recalled to Rome and replaced by Marcellus.