^{page 25 note 1} Simon, M., ‘Saint Stephen and the Jerusalem Temple’, J.E.H. 11 (1951), pp. 127–42, p. 127:Google Scholar ‘It has often been noted that St Stephen stands, at first sight, as an isolated figure in the history of the early church. His theological thought, as expressed in his speech (Acts vii), is very personal and, if compared with other forms of primitive Christian thought, almost completely aberrant.’ Beyer, H. W., ‘Die Apostelgeschichte’, Des Neue Testament Deutsch, v (Göttingen, 1947), p. 51: ‘Die Rede des Stephanus ist einer der eigenartigsten Stücke in der Apg. Form und Inhalt unterscheiden sic gleicherweise von den vielen anderen Reden, die in ihr enthalten sind.’Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 2} Wendt, H. H., ‘Die Apostelgeschichte’, Krit.-Ex. Komm. über des N. T. (Göttingen, 1913), p. 138:Google Scholar ‘Die eigentümliche Auswahl des Geschichtsstoffes erklärt sich befriedigend nur dann, wenn man den Hauptgedanken und -zweck der Rede darin findet, zu zeigen, daß die Heilsgegenwart Gotten nicht an die Tempelstätte gebunden ist.…’ Simon, M., art. cit. p. 127:Google Scholar ‘The main characteristic is a strongly anti-ritualistic trend, and a fierce hostility toward the temple.…’ According to Gärtner, B., ‘The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation’, Acta Sem. Neot. Upsal. xxi (Uppsala, 1955), p. 34, n. 3,Google ScholarReicke, B., ‘Gudsuppenbarelsen och det Heliga landet, Anmäarkningar till Stefanus' Försvarstal i Apg. 7’, Svenska Jerusatemsfören Tidskr. LII, (1953), pp.2–13, 30–8 and 63–74, supposes the speech to be an effort to show that ‘The law shows that God's revelation disclosed to Israel has not been restricted to the Holy Land or the Holy Place Jerusalem’Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 3} Preuschen, E., ‘Die Apostelgeschichte’, Handb. Z. N.T. iv. Th. (Tübingen, 1912), p. 38:Google Scholar ‘St. will nachweisen, daß trotz der großen Wohltaten Gotten das jüdische Volk stets undankbar war und daher sein Anrecht auf Bevorzugung verscherzt hat.’ Mundle, W., ‘Die Stephanusrede Apg. 7: eine Martyrerapologie’, Z.N. W. XX (1921), pp. 133–47, pp. 139–40.Google ScholarBaurenfeind, O., ‘Die Apostelgeschichte’, Theol. Handkomm. zum N. T. v (Leipzig, 1939), p. 110:Google Scholar ‘Der Unglaube Israels…. istes, der dem Lauf des Ev. die bis zur Gegenwart maßgebende Richtung gegeben hat.’ Haenschen, E.., ‘Die Apostelgeschichte’, Krit.-Ex. Komm. über des N.T. 3. Abt. (Göttingen, 1956), 10. Aufi., pp. 247–8: ‘In alledem wird die Gottlosigkeit Israels anschaulich.’Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 4} See Preuschen, art. cit. p. 38,Google Scholarde Zwaan, J., ‘De Handelingen der Apostelen’, Tekst en Uitleg (Groningen-den Haag, 1920), p. 88,Google ScholarBaurenfeind, art. cit. pp. 110–12,Google ScholarHaenschen, art. cit. p. 248.Google Scholar Especially Bruce, F. F., Commentary on the Book of Acts (London, 1954), pp. 142–3Google Scholar, following Manson, W., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1995), pp. 24–46Google Scholar in a chapter on ‘Stephen and the World-Mission of Christianity’. Dibelius, M., ‘Die Reden der Apostelgeschichte und die antike Geschichtsschreibung’ 1949, Auftätze jur Apostelgeschithte (Göttingen, 1951), p. 146.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 5} Lake, K. and Cadbury, H. J., The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, iv, p. 70:Google Scholar (i) The absence of a temple or even of a fixed country in the days of the Patriarchs. (2) The general tendency of Israel to rebel against its divinely appointed leaders and guides. (3) The parallelism between the Jews' treatment ofJesus and their ancestors’ treatment of Joseph, Moses, and the prophets. See also Beyer, art. cit. p. 51.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 1} Wendt, art. cit. p. 139:Google Scholar ‘Die Grundgedanken der wirklichen Rede des Steph. wird sic wesentlich treu bewahrt haben.’ Zwaan, J. de, art. cit. p. 88,Google Scholar supposes the speech to be an adaptation of an older document. Baurenfeind, art. cit. p. 112:Google Scholar resting… ‘durchgehend auf einem älteren—dem unsren im großlen und ganzen ähnlichen—Text.…’. Haenschen, art. cit. pp. 247–8:Google Scholar ‘Damit wird verstündlich, daß Lukas eine vorhandene Geschichtsbetrachtung übernahm und für seine Zwecke soweit möglich umformte. … Schoeps, H. J., Theologie und Gexhkhie ds Judenchriestentums (Tübingen, 1949), p. 441Google Scholar supposes that Luke a ‘wohi schriftlich vorliegende Jakobusrede stark gestutzt mid überarbeitet einer Nebenfigur der Ereignisse in den Mund gelegt hat’. Grundmann, W., ‘Das Problem des hellenistischen Christentenums innerhalb der Jerusalemer Urgemeinde’, Z.N. W. XXXVIII (1939), pp. 45–73, p. 62:Google Scholar ‘ein apologetisches Stuck am jüdischer oder judenchristlicher Hand’. Dibelius, M., art. cit. p. 145:Google Scholar ‘Abhängigkeit von einem älteren Text’. See also Gartner, art. cit. p. 207.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 2} Whether the Charges brought against Stephen (vi. 13–15) are really answered depends on the speech being really Stephen's. The speech is, however, not to be considered as a defence in our sense of the word.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 3} Otherwise one has to face the same problem as Wetter, G. P., ‘Das alteste hellenistische Christen-turn nach der Apostelgeschichte’, A.R. W. XXI (1922), pp. 397–429, p. 414: ‘Die Schwierigkeit, die hier vorliegt, besteht meines Erachtens darin, daß einerseits der Tempel für widergöttlich erklärt wird, und daß dies letztere Thema, das den Schiuß der Rede beherrscht, im Anfang der Rede gründlich zu fehien scheint.’Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 4} van Unnik, W. C., ‘De Achtergrond en Betekenis van Handelingen 10:4 en 35’, Ned. Theol. Tijdschr. III (1948/1949), pp. 260–83 and 336–54.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 1} Historical surveys with didactical purposes are well known in Jewish literature, cf. Deut. xxix, Josh. xxiv, I Sam. xii, Neh. ix and also Acts xiii and Apost. Const. vii. 37. See Gartner, art. cit. p. 20, n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 2} de Zwann, J., art. cit. p. 30, translates: ‘and of the fathers the one who received living words depemding on ούτóς έοτι ό.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 3} That Moses is mediator between the angel and our fathers, as suggested by Baurenfeind, art. cit. p. 126, is quite possible. It is not necessary to suppose an underlying , suggested by Lake and Cadbury, op. cit. p. 78 and followed by Haenschen, art. cit. p. 240, n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 4} Bruce, op. cit. p. 540, follows the reading ‘to give us’ as in D A C 81.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 5} See Exod. xxxii. 17 (Joshua) and 25–9 (Levites). It is to be noted that Grundmann, pp. 61–3. found support for his theory of two sources to be discerned in this speech in the difference between ‘our fathers’ in the beginning and ‘your fathers’ at the end.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 1} Translations are taken from Brownlee, W. H., ‘The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline, Translation and Notes’, B.A.S.O.R. Suppi. St. 10–12 (1951).Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 2} See Brownice, art. cit. p. 13 ff. 24.Google Scholar The text in Burrows, M., The Dead Sea Scrolls of St Mark's Monastery, vol. II, Fasc. 2:Google ScholarPlates and Transcription of the Manual of Discipline (New Haven, 1951).Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 3} See for the so-called dualism in 1QS: Kuhn, K. G., ‘Die in Palästina gefundenen hebräischen Texte und das N.T.’, Z. Th.K. XLVII (1950), pp. 192–211,Google ScholarKuhn, K. G., ‘Die Sektenschrift und die iranische Religion’, Z. Th.K. XLIX (1952), pp. 296–316,Google Scholar and Schubert, K., ‘Der gegenwärtige Stand der Erforschung der in Palästina neugefundenen hebräischen Handschriften’, T.L.Z. LXXVIII (1953), pp. 495–504.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 1} It is known, for example from Deut. xxxiii. 2 in the LXX, that angels were present on the mountain, see Lake and Cadbury, op. cit. p. 78. It is to be noted that here only one angel is mentioned.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 2} It is generally accepted that, contrary to Gal. iii. 19, the giving of the law by an angel in this case is not due to a tendency to lessen the value of the law.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 3} This parallel is noticed by Johnson, S. E., ‘The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline’, Z.A. W. IXIV (1954), pp. 106–20, p. 113.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 4} Baumgarten, J. M., ‘Sacrifice and Worship among the Jewish Sectarians of the Dead Sea (Qumrân) Scrolls’, H.T.R. XLVI (1953), pp.: 141–57, pp. 144–5,Google Scholar and Johnson, art. cit. p. 113. both point to the quotation of Amos v. 25–7 in CDC vii, 14. In the Zadokite Fragments, however, the passage is quoted in relation to the degeneration of the sacrificial cult, in Stephen's speechwith regard to the disobedience in the desert.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 5} See Simon, art. cit. p. 128–31.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 6} A jewish parallel to this passage is to be found in Macc. ioa: R.Jehošluaˇi b. Levi (first half of the third century): ‘….lieber 1st mir em Tag, den du [sc. David] dasitzest und dich mit der Gesetzlehre befassest, als die tausend Ganzopfer, die dein Sohn Šelomoh mir dereinst auf dem Altar darbringen wird’. See Goldschmidt, L., Der Babyloniicchs Talmud (Berlin, 1903), vii, p. 551.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 1} Rejected by Preuschen, Wendt, Bruce, Zahn, Haenschen and Ropes, Beg. III, p. 72.Google Scholar The reading ‘house’ is accepted by Baurenfeind, Schoeps, art. cit. p. 238, and Lake and Cadbury.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 2} See Simon, art. cit. p. 128–9.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 3} Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge-London, 1881) (text), p. 575.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 4} Simon, art. cit. p. 130 n. 2: ‘The opposition mischkan-baith is not maintained throughout the whole bible. In the harmonising perspective of the Chronicles, for instance, it is completely wiped out, and we find such phrases as: mischkan-beith haeleohim (ακηνή οικον θεοũ) I Chron. vi. 33 (LXX, vi. 48). It is the more significant to see it reappear in all its strength in Acts.’Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 5} Josephus, , Ant. VIII, 107Google Scholar (Solomon's Speech on the occasion of the dedication of the temple) quoted by Wenschkewitz, H., ‘Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe’, Angelos, IV (1932), pp. 70–230, p. 87 n. 7. Wenschkewitz' conclusion is: ‘Der Rechtsgrund füs diesen (sc. Tempelbau) ist ein. Willensentschluß, ein Befehl Gottes; des Tempd wird aber urn des Menschen willen gebaut’ (p. 88).Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 6} See for a discussion of this idea: Gärtner, art. cit. pp. 215–18.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 7} Wenschkewitz, art. cit. p. 177 n. 3: ‘Des Gedanke [sc. da die Genieinde der endzeitliche Tempel ist] ist also erst nachweisbar, als das Christentuni griechischen Boden betreten hat…‘, and p. 180: ‘So ergibt sich also, da die Spiritualisierung des Tempelbegriffes bei Paulus in stoischen Gedankenkreisenihre Ursprung hat.’ Since the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls this is proved to be wrong.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 1} Baumgarten, art. cit. p. 152, combines the two passages: ‘…but while the Israelite sectaries formed a “holy house” (bêt qodeŝ), the priests were to be established as a “most holy institution” (sôd qodeš qodaāšîm)’.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 2} Burrows, art. Cit. p. 35 n. 11. Cf. for Stephen's speech Beyer, art. cit. p. 50: ‘Da erscheint zum ersten Male im Christentum eine Geschichtsbetrachtung, wie sic am schärften vom Gottfried Arnold vertreten worden ist: “die wahre reine Gemeinde” steht “der falschen abgcfailenen Kirche” gegenüber.’Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 3} Cullmann, O., ‘The Significance of the Qumran texts for Research into the Beginnings of Christianity’, J.B.L. LXXIV (1955), pp. 213–26, pp. 223–4.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 4} de Vaux, R., Fouilie au Khirbet Qumrân, Rev. Bibl. LX (1953), pp. 83–106, p. 86.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 5} Theol. W.b. II, pp. 508–9 (Windisch).Google Scholar