Ben C Smith

I have been frequenting native Greek websites recently in order to find scanned or otherwise uploaded ancient patristic texts online.

A bit ago I stumbled across a page, apparently of Christian persuasion, that quotes (and comments on) IIDB poster Steven Carr:

Ο άθεος Steven Carr �*χει γράψει το εξής γελοίο, προσπαθώντας να δείξει ότι ο άγιος Στ�*φανος δεν υπ�*στη μαρτυρικό θάνατο �*νεκα τη πίστης του στο Χριστό: «Acts also records the killing of Stephen. Stephen was not one of the disciples and he appears to have been lynched because he spoke out against the Temple (Acts 6:14)».

My own rendition would be (but warning: I was trained in ancient Greek, not modern!):

The atheist Steven Carr has written the following ridiculous thing, trying to show that Saint Stephen did not die as a martyr for his faith in Christ: [English quote follows].

The writer seems to be quoting from a Carr page on early martyrdom.

I think Acts 7.55-57 is trying to tell us that it was his confession of Christ that actually got Stephen lynched, but that is not really my point here; I just thought it was interesting and funny what one can uncover on foreign websites using Google.

Ben.

Steven Carr

I can't find the word 'Christ' or 'Jesus' in what Stephen said to the mob in Acts 7:55-57.

A confession of Christ that never mentions his name?

Still, I guess angry mobs got training in Christian theology so they instantly knew who 'Son of Man' referred to.

Which seems to be a lot more about the title 'Son of Man' than Paul knew!

Ben C Smith

It is fair to dispute whether Luke is correct to understand the subsequent confession (in which Stephen says that it is the son of man standing at the divine right hand) as referring to Jesus.

More to the point, however, in verse 54, after Stephen has wrapped up his speech, his opponents gnash their teeth at him. In verse 57, after Stephen has made his confession, they seize him and lynch him.

Clearly, the immediate cause for his murder was whatever happened in verses 55-56. You appear to have acknowledged this when you argued that, because neither Christ nor Jesus appears in the actual confession of verses 55-56, it was not his confession of Christ that got him killed. But what does this kind of argument do to your position? You state on your webpage...:

Stephen... appears to have been lynched because he spoke out against the Temple....

...that he was murdered because of something to do with the temple. But, to use your own standard, the word temple does not appear in those verses.

Ben.

Steven Carr

Stephen never mentions the name Jesus until after he was being stoned.

The accusation against him was that he was accused of saying things against the Temple.

Presumably black people who were lynched were lynched because of anything that they said just before they were hung, and not for what caused a mob to seek them out in the first place.

Ben C Smith

Those who arrest him mention the name Jesus in Acts 6.14.

What, in your opinion, is it about the son of man statement that provokes everybody to get the deed done there and then? How do you think they understood the statement?

(You can answer either historically, as if the episode really happened, or literarily, from the perspective of how Luke is arranging things.)

Also against Moses (see 6.11).

The things he is accused of saying against the temple include, primarily, the idea that Jesus will destroy the temple... and alter the Mosaic traditions (see 6.14).

This would be incorrect.

Ben.

Steven Carr

The author intended the audience to understand it as a reference to Jesus.

But how widely known would the title 'Son of Man' have been to the average mob in the street?

Paul doesn't seem to know of any such title.

Ben C Smith

I do not know, but this is not the average mob on the street.

Recall that in Luke 22.69-70 the priests and scribes apparently understand the son of man reference to be to Jesus; when he claims that the son of man will be seated at the right hand of God, they ask him: Are you therefore the son of God?

You are correct that Luke intends us to understand the son of man as a reference to Jesus. I think he also intends us to understand that the council understands it as a reference to Jesus. As I said before, Luke could be wrong here; he could be misinterpreting his sources or what-not. But I think your Greek critic can probably make a better case that the son of man saying is supposed to refer to Jesus than you can that the son of man saying is supposed to refer to the temple.

And do not forget that, according to our only source for the martyrdom of Stephen, those who arrest him do so because of what he has been saying, not only about the temple, but also about Jesus the Nazarene and the temple.

We do not know whether Paul knew of this title. That Paul does not use it tells us little or nothing; it could be because he does not know it, but it could also be because he knows that his gentile readers would not understand it very well. I am not certain at this stage how to tell which scenario is the case.

Ben.