Duvduv

I was reading the speech of Stephen in Acts 7, and was amazed that the author of the speech makes a number of omissions of basic facts of the stories that could have easily been avoided even if the author knew the stories straight from the Septaguint.

Yet in other cases he shows not only familiarity with the stories but even with the Midrash Breshit Rabba. In verse 23 Stephen says that Moses was 40 when he killed the Egyptian and that he stayed in Midian for 40 years. This is not in the Torah but only in the midrash.

On the other hand, the author has Stephen simply say that Moses was "placed outside" rather than placed in a basket on the river, and the new Pharoah decided to "throw out" the babies, when it says in Exodus that it was only the boys who were to be cast into the river.

Stephen also says that the sons of Jacob ("our ancestors")were buried in Shechem, whereas it was only Joseph and his sons who were buried there.

Stephen includes himself as "us" and "our" until verse 51 when now he refers to his listeners as "you stifnecked people" and "YOU are just like YOUR ancestors".

Indeed, in verse 38 Stephen claims that an ANGEL spoke to Moses at Sinai rather than God himself, yet, he accurately cites Exodus where Moses is commanded to take off his sandals at the burning bush when God speaks to him via an angel, which is an accurate representation of Exodus 3.

It sounds like there are at least two different speakers engaged in what is called the speech of Stephen, and yet it is similar to the tone of the Quran in reference to biblical sources where the writer only seems to know the stories from what he has heard rather than from reading the texts themselves. How else could it be explained that "Stephen" shows familiarity with the Torah and Midrash and yet makes clear omissions of basic elements of the stories?

outhouse

40 was not a literal number used in antiquity.

it was used as a really long time. thats why you see the number 40 pop up all through the bible when they dont know exactly how long of a time it was.





almost everything you wrote can be attributed to the mythology since that is all a literary creation.


anyones guess on the variation's from greek translation errors, to scribal errors, oral tradation as source for OT. who knows

stephan huller

Stephen was a Samaritan probably a Dosithean

sotto voce

It was used as a metaphor for 'complete' or 'sufficient'.

Duvduv

My primary point was the lack of consistency with the Jewish sources appearing in that speech. On the one hand you see the reference from Midrash Bereshit Rabba and on the other hand you see the non-Masoretic number of 75 in the family of Jacob. You see familiarity with the text of the Torah and omissions of basic information that is in the Torah.

sotto voce

So was the river inside the parents' house? Some house.

Baby boys are babies.

Another mountain out of a molehill.

outhouse

how many different translations are there for the NT? 5 or 10 or 100 or a 1000

Duvduv

By the way, note in context that despite all the claims of persecution of "Christians" and seeking to destroy the church, the only actual specific information involves Stephen in whose case Saul wasn't even directly involved at all.
It would seem that the author of Acts had a rough time establishing the actual facts of the "churches in Judea" and elsewhere in the first century and Saul's actual involvement in persecuting them, whatever that means, since actual persecution of "Christians" (Arians? Orthodox? Marcionites? Valentians? Who else?) is not meaningfully explained anywhere. The author(s) just expected the reader to take his word for it.

outhouse

they didnt exist in Pauls time

were talking strickly about jewish-christians.


You do understand that a "church" in pauls time was nothing more then a dinner table in someones house???????

stephan huller

I've always had a problem with this definition. ἐκκλησία was the principal assembly of the democracy of ancient Athens. It's a grander title that people have typically been led to believe. Like the word 'constitution' in American English. Within the ekklesia was the portion of chrestoi (= noblemen) from which current title for all believers in Jesus, Christian (= christianoi) is a Latinized Greek corruption.

I like to think of the early Church as being modeled on an ideal state. As pseudo-Xenophon characterizes the Greek ekklesia: "Indeed as to the constitution of the Athenians my opinion is that I do not at all approve of their having chosen this form of constitution because by making this choice they have given the advantage to the vulgar people (poneroi) at the expense of the good (chrestoi). This is the reason for my disapproval, but what I want to point out is that now that they have adopted this view they in an excellent way back up this form of constitution and manage the other matters, which the other Hellenes think done wrongly by them” (1.1)