Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible

and Theology
http://btb.sagepub.com

Stephen and the Life of the Primitive Church

Paul Trudinger
Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 1984; 14; 18
DOI: 10.1177/014610798401400104

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://btb.sagepub.com

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.

Additional services and information for Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/14/1/18

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009

STEPHEN AND THE LIFE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH
Paul Trudinger, University of Winnipeg, Manitoba
It is my purpose in this short study to set forth some of
the problems which are raised by the incidents involving
Stephen, recounted in The Acts of the Apostles, and to
draw from them some tentative conclusions about the
life and faith of the Primitive Church.
In point of fact, the incidents which gather about the
person of Stephen are limited to six in number, namely:
(1) the appointment of &dquo;the Seven&dquo; who should distribute
food (Acts 6:1-6); (2) the working of miracles by Stephen
(6:8); (3) his powerful disputations in a certain synagogue
and the consequent accusations against him (6:9-15); (4)
his defense speech or sermon (7:1-53); (5) his death
(7:54-60; 8:2); and (6) the persecution following, and the
scattering abroad of the disciples with its attendant mis-
sionary activity (8:1, 4-7, 25-40; and 11:19-24). There is
only one other mention of Stephen’s name in the New
Testament and that occurs in Paul’s speech to the crowds
in Jerusalem after he has been arrested in the temple.
Here Stephen is referred to as Christ’s &dquo;martyr&dquo; (22:20).
Before looking at the problems raised by each of these
incidents, it is perhaps fitting to emphasize a fact that is
generally accepted by New Testament scholars, namely,
that the author of Acts clearly intended to give his readers
the impression of an over-all harmony and unanimity
within the early years of the Church’s life. lf we take his
re-arrangement of the facts as set forth in the Book of
Acts to be historically accurate, then we have at first
glance a picture of unity. On closer scrutiny, however, we
find that the author/editor gives himself away by a large
number of anomalies, discrepancies and vague summar-
izations which occur in his account. Hence the problems
which we shall now turn to consider, in the hope of
deriving from them some helpful conclusions about the
life of the primitive Christian community, or, more accu-
rately, communities.
The Appointment of &dquo;the Seven&dquo;
(Acts 6:1-6)
On the surface of it the events connected with this
incident are as follows: certain &dquo;Hellenist&dquo; widows are
unfairly treated in the matter of food distribution and the
&dquo;Hellenists&dquo; lodge a complaint against the Hebrews,
whose widows are apparently differently treated. The
complaint is brought to the twelve apostles who call
together an assembly of &dquo;the multitude of the disciples,&dquo;
18
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
R3B 2E9
that is presumably the whole Christian community. The
apostles explain that they themselves are too pre-
occupied with preaching and teaching to be able to deal
with the problems arising concerning food distribution.
They tell this gathering to choose from amongst their
members a special committee or &dquo;order&dquo; of seven men
who would be responsible for this matter. Judging by the
way &dquo;the Seven&dquo; were set aside ceremoniously, they were
chosen to handle matters like this in general, and not just
for this particular crisis. The task of these seven men is
expressly set over against that of the twelve. We read that
&dquo;the whole multitude&dquo; was pleased by this directive and
acted on it. The difficulties involved in accepting this
account of the happenings at face value were enormous.
Let me outline a few of them.
The matter of food distribution apparently concerned
the whole of the primitive Christian community and we
can rightly assume that the food should have been dis-
tributed to the needy without discrimination. The fact that
this early Christian community was not one unified
whole, however, is borne out by the way in which one
group within the community, the Hellenistai, com-
plained against another, the Hebraioi. When the whole
community decided on a line of action to meet this
complaint, they appointed a committee consisting
entirely of Hellenists, if we can judge from their names.
The Hebrews have not even one representative to assure
that their interests are upheld. The formerly disgruntled
minority are now given full rein in the matter of the
distribution of food not only amongst their own needy but
presumably amongst the needy of the whole community.
Is this a likely thing to have happened? Christian charity
can account for a great deal, but if the Hellenist Christians
were not above complaining, it is not probable that the
Hebrew Christians were as magnanimous as this account
depicts them. The story thus has a decidedly artificial
nature which is added to further when we consider our
second &dquo;incident&dquo; or reference to Stephen, namely that
he worked miracles and preached powerfully. This was
surely overstepping his apostolically appointed bounds!
What observations can be made from the artificialities
of the story? What parts of the story have genuinely
historical roots? The following points seem to stand out.
(a) Despite the fact that Luke wants to create an impres-
sion of over-all unanimity within the early Church, it is
clear that there were distinct divisions. How many, we do
not know, but we know of the two we are dealing with
here. I will come back to these presently.
 (b) Luke seems anxious to safeguard the status of the
apostolic circle, particularly of Peter - I shall amplify this
further when treating of the first missionary work of the
early Church - and for this reason it may be that he
introduces the establishment of a secondary or sub-
apostolic order in the way he does. The artificiality of this
has already been noted; nevertheless,
(c) The existence of a group of seven leaders within the
Hellenist section of the primitive Christian community is
very much within the bounds of probability. The existing
leaders of this branch may have been formally granted
the sanction of the apostles. In other words, the details
brought forward by Luke regarding the seven leaders do
have, in all probability, some historical grounds. This
raises the vexing question, but a key question: &dquo;Who were
the Hellenists?&dquo;
The Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon gives Hellcnistes as
being &dquo;a Greek speaking Jew in contrast to one speaking
a Semitic language,&dquo; (251 ). This is usually taken to be the
essential significance of the word and hence the contrast
of the Hellenistai with the Hebraioi is one of a linguistic-
usage nature. The fact that it was Palestinian Aramaic
and not Hebrew that the majority of the Jerusalem Chris-
tian community would naturally speak need not be a
serious objection since the readers of Luke’s story (and I
am regarding Luke as the author for the purposes of this
paper) would not know the distinction. A real objection,
however, lies in the fact that Hebraios does not normally
note a linguistic distinction, primarily. Marcel Simon
points out that it is applied to Jews of the Diaspora many
of whom could not speak Hebrew or Aramaic, (10). Paul
called himself Hebraios ex Hebraion (Hebrew of the
Hebrews) (Phil 3:5), but this was almost certainly not a
language issue he was pointing to; certainly the Philippi-
ans would not have known him primarily as an Aramaic
or Hebrew speaker. The indication is that the word has
primarily a religious and possibly also an ethnic connota-
tion. If it was the language difference that Luke primarily
wanted to point to, why did he not set Hellënistai over
against Hebraistai for there is a perfectly respectable
verb meaning &dquo;to speak Hebrew,&dquo; namely, Hebrai’zein?
It would appear then that the Hellenists were distin-
guished by that name for reasons other than their lan-
guage. Henry Cadbury, in his contribution to the
monumental Foakes Jackson-Kirsopp Lake Beginnings
of Christianity ( i 933: Vol. 5, 59ff.) has contended that
Hellënistai as used in Acts is a synonym of HellEnes, and
that therefore the Hellenists were Gentiles who had been
won to faith by the Christian witness; they were notJewish
at all. There is more in this than is often concluded. The
last mentioned of &dquo;the Seven,&dquo; Nicolaus, is specifically
styled &dquo;a proselyte&dquo; as if in contrast to the others. If the
rest were not proselytes they then were either born Jews
or else they were Gentiles; &dquo;God-fearers,&dquo; perhaps, but
Gentiles, nonetheless. Cullmann (221) is convinced that
these Hellenists were Palestinian and not of the Diaspora.
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
With such names as the Seven have, what better conclu-
sion is there to come to than that these men (representa-
tive Hellenists) were Gentiles living on Palestinian soil?
The answer is that the alternative is probably a sounder
conclusion, namely, that the first six named were born
Jews. It seems evident that at least Stephen was a Jew, for
as Simon (11) insists, who but a Jew could begin a
speech with the words, &dquo;Men, brethren and fathers,
hearken. The God of glory appeared unto our father,
Abraham ... ? (Acts 7:2).
Marcel Simon puts forward the following suggestions
as to the identity of the Hellenists, suggestions which to
my view are most convincing (9-19). The Hellenists were
indeed Greek-speaking Jews, but more. The term helle-
nismos is used in the Second Book of Maccabees to
describe one who had adopted Greek, that is, pagan ways
and fashions. To the Jew it was a pejorative term. Simon
states that the word HellEnistes had come likewise to
carry a disparaging, derogatory nuance. Cullmann (221)
has pointed out that the verb hellenizein can carry the
meaning, &dquo;to live according to the customs and manners
of the Greeks.&dquo; Thus it could be certain Greek philosophi-
cal views, perhaps, which these Hellenists held that gave
rise to their being stigmatized Nellenistai.
We cannot say for sure, though their anti-temple, anti-
ritualistic bias seems clear from Stephen’s speech. This
group, suggests Simon, probably existed as a marginal
sect within Judaism even before the time of Jesus’ minis-
try. They held some fairly unorthodox views, particularly
about temple worship, and when some of them were laterr
attracted to the Christian message (originally with Juda-
ism), they brought with them their particular emphases
-
in fact it may have been their very unorthodox views
that they found had an echo in some of Jesus’ teaching.
This would have meant that in some ways they were
opposed to the apparently orthodox group who gathered
around the Twelve, and later around James the brother of
Jesus. &dquo;The Seven&dquo; may well have been the leading lights
among these Hellenist sectarian Jews before their ac-
ceptance of Jesus’ message. The story of their appoint-
ment to a special &dquo;order&dquo; in Acts 6 is thus, as hinted at
above, a smoothed over version of some act of recogni-
tion of their place of leadership, on the part of the Twelve.
The Working of Miracles by Stephen
and His Disputations
already spoken of the anomaly of these activities
I have
on Stephen’s part, coming as they do after his having
been set aside for a distinctly different task. It was in the
synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians and Alexan-
drians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia, that Stephen
disputed mightily. This would seem to indicate that there
were synagogues of different ethnic groups and/or differ-
19
ing religious biases within Palestinian Judaism. The Helle-
nists probably had their own synagogues. The one
mentioned may well have been one of &dquo;Hellenist&dquo; lean-
ings. It is interesting to note that the form of the accusa-
tions and of the trial is very similar to that which is
recorded concerning Jesus bythe Synopticists. This sim-
ilarity is also to be noted in the section concerning Ste-
phen’s death, and Marcel Simon (26) sees in these facts a
beginning of an imtatio Christi motif in the biographies
of the saints.
It is particularly significant, I think, that ihe chief accusa-
tion brought against Stephen centers around his claim
that Jesus would destroy the Temple and change the
customs given by Moses. We shall consider in more
detail Stephen’s (the Hellenists’?) anti-temple attitude
and the prominence he gives to the figure of Moses when
we look at the pattern of his defense speech. Suffice it to
say now that there is no mention here of &dquo;building the
Temple again in three days&dquo; as in Mark 14:58. This only
lends strength to the view that Stephen held an anti-
temple bias, and any mention of Jesus’ rebuilding it
would have been anathema to him. But it also causes us
to wonder about the origin of the &dquo;destroying the temple&dquo;
motif. Could it not have first been a Hellenist teaching?
One more point of interest. Stephen is accused of having
claimed that &dquo;this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy the
temple&dquo; (Acts 6:14). Stephen thus witnesses to his belief
in some future work of Jesus on this earth; in short to an
imminent parousia. Strong enough faith in this immi-
nent destruction of the despised temple may have been
sufficient to cause a member of a marginal unorthodox
sect, like the Hellenists, to espouse the cause of Jesus.
Stephen’s Defense Speech
I will not be able in this essay to go into all the ramifica-
tions of this speech, but if we take Stephen to be a
paradigm example of a Hellenist, then the content of the
speech may tell us much about the distinctive views of
this group. On first sight this speech seems to follow
much the same lines as other Christian &dquo;apology&dquo;
mons in Acts, for example Peter’s sermon in the temple
in Acts 3 and Paul’s in Antioch in Pisidia in Acts 13. The
history of the people of lsiael is recounted in a stereo-
typed kind of way. But in Peter’s and Paul’s sermons this
history develops in an ascending progression finding its
culmination in the coming of the Messiah, who is Jesus.
The sins of the Israelites are soft-pedalled; the Jews are
virtually excused for their killing of Jesus. Paul states that
the rulers were to blame but that it was because &dquo;they
knew him not.&dquo; &dquo;In their ignorance&dquo; they were instru-
ments of the divine planner and their condemnation of
Jesus was in fulfilment of the Scriptures (Acts 13:26-27).
Peter takes a similar position (Acts 3:17-18)..
20
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
Stephen’s speech stands in contradistinction to these
other sermons in its interpretation of Israel’s history. Far
from saying &dquo;blasphemous words againstMoses&dquo; (as his
opponents had held in accusation against him), Stephen
centers over a third of his speech around the person of
Moses, striving to maintain Moses’ purity and rectitude.
The true and pure Law was given by an angel, a favorable
fact to Stephen who sees angels as being of the highest
faithfulness. In this he differs from Paul and the writer to
the Hebrews (cf. Gal 3:14 and Heb 2:2). But since Aaron’s
unfaithfulness shown in the golden calf incident, the peo-
ple of Israel have gone from bad to worse in their rebellion
and hostility to this pure Law of God. All the sacrificial
ritual is subsequent to this pure Law and is therefore
condemned. The building of the Temple cut right across
the true intent of God and is thus another example of
Israel’s sin. The Temple is just about on a par with the
making of the golden calf, to Stephen’s way of thinking.
Solomon is set over against David who was intent on
finding a skenoma for the God of Jacob (Acts 7:46; Ps
132:5). This skenoma, or &dquo;camping ground&dquo; referred to
a proper place in Zion, where, within the tabernacle, or
tent, the ark might rest. Solomon on the other hand built
a permanent temple, despite the fact that &dquo;the Most High
dwelleth not in temples made with hands.&dquo;
This opposition to the temple had, in all probability,
quite a long history in Israel. Nathan’s prophecy in 2
Samuel 7 is an indication of this. We might readily
assume then that these Hellenists were a group who even
prior to their espousal of the Christian faith maintained
that opposition. They may have been a sect similar in
spirit to the Qumran community.
There are not many references to Jesus in Stephen’s
speech. It is, as Simon has pointed out (45), far more
Moseocentric than Christocentric. To Stephen, the prime
significance of Jesus is yet to be seen. He &dquo;will destroy
this place (the temple):’ and then restore the pure Law
originally delivered to Moses. Hence Jesus is seen as that
&dquo;prophet like unto me&dquo; whose coming Moses had pre-
dicted (Acts 7:37; Deut 18:15). The notion of a Mosaic
Messiah who would be a &dquo;restorer&dquo; is distinctively Samari-
tan (Foakes-Jackson/Lake, Vol. I, 406). This fact will be
ser- seen to have significance when we consider the mission
of the Hellenists after they had been scattered abroad as a
result of Stephen’s death.
We may justly wonder why it is that Luke has included
this section if indeed the tenor of it runs counter to the
spirit of the rest of Acts. It needs to be emphasized that
the speech is not Luke’s own composition, for, as W. L.
Knox has insisted, Luke would &dquo;hardly have been guilty of
such barbarous Greek&dquo; (23:72). Nor are views of the
speech necessarily Luke’s own; in fact I would assert that
they are necessarily not Luke’s. He has inserted a frag-
ment that was apparently in existence, for the event of
Stephen’s death was too important a landmark in the
story of the early Christian witness to be omitted. Further-
1
more, if Luke based the plan of this book on the program,
&dquo;You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in Judaea, in
Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth&dquo; (Acts
1:8), then the missionary work following Stephen’s death,
undertaken by these Hellenists in Samaria needed to be
spoken of and placed in context. Luke manages so to fit it
in with the rest of the picture that on first glance a general
atmosphere of harmony in the Church’s life appears to
prevail.
Stephen’s Death
I have already drawn attention to the similarities
between Stephen’s words at death and those of Jesus.
For the purposes of this study I wish only to comment
further on the one saying, &dquo;Behold I see the heavens
opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of
God&dquo; (Acts 7:56). I wish firstly to comment on the use
here of &dquo;Son of Man,&dquo; and then on the phrase, &dquo;standing
at the right hand of God.&dquo;
SON OF MAN. William Manson claimed that Stephen’s
use of this title was the key to understanding the core of
his message. Here, asserted Manson, was an original
form of Christology which posited &dquo;the more than Jewish
Messianic sense in which the office and significance of
Jesus in religious history is (was) to be understood,&dquo; (31 ).
The Messiah was &dquo;on the throne of the universe. Here we
see Stephen’s (and the Hellenists’ ) universalism. How-
ever, both Marcel Simon and T. W. Manson deny this.
There is no necessarily &dquo;more than Jewish Messianic
sense implied by the title &dquo;Son of Man&dquo; any more than by
the title &dquo;Lord,&dquo; which is widely used by Paul and others.
Furthermore, far from indicating a universalism, the use
of the phrase &dquo;Son of Man ... at the right hand of God,&dquo; if
drawn from the &dquo;Son of Man&dquo; scene in Daniel 7, is sym-
bolical, standing for the Saints of the Most High, the godly
remnant within Israel. Such a symbol is rather narrowly
nationalistic and not universal.
STANDING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD. Is there
any particular significance in the picture of Jesus &dquo;stand-
ing,&dquo; rather than the usual confession of Jesus &dquo;seated&dquo;
at the right hand of God? Some commentators (C. H.
Dodd, for example) have stated that both verbs merely
indicate Jesus’ &dquo;being&dquo; at God’s right hand. But is there
not possibly a further reason for this unique use in this
context of the verb hestana~? Three possible conjectures
are worthy of consideration.
1. There is the view of J. A. T. Robinson (55), that the
Son of Man as humankind’s representative or advocate
before God is standing to plead the cause of his martyr,
Stephen.
2. Another plausible interpretation has been that Jesus
isstanding in an attitude of readiness to welcome Ste-
phen into the Kingdom.
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
3. Another view deserving of attention is that put for-
ward by H. P. Owen. To him the use of the verb &dquo;to stand&dquo;
indicates the imminence of the parousia, and comes in
a definite sequence found in Luke-Acts, of the stages of
Jesus’ course from the Cross to the parousia. The six
stages are:
1. At death, a departure (exodos).
2. After death, an &dquo;entering into&dquo; ( eiselthein) the glory of
the Resurrection.
3. After forty days, &dquo;received up&dquo; (analambanesthai) into
heaven.
4. In heaven, &dquo;made to sit&dquo; ( kathesthai) at God’s right hand.
5. In Stephen’s vision, the parousia being at hand, &dquo;stand-
ing&dquo; ; having risen from a sitting position, (hestanai)
6. Finally, returning or coming again to earth, (erchesthai)
Even if we accept this interpretation and give Luke
credit for the development of this clever, if somewhat
artificial pattern, does this tell us something about the
thought of the primitive Christian community, especially
of this Hellenist sect, or does it only reflect the planning
and thought of this author? It well may indicate the belief
in an imminent parousia on the part of the early Church.
It does not tell us anything specifically about the Helle-
nists’ view on this matter.
The Persecution, the Scattering and the
Mission of the H ellenists
Finally, I wish to outline briefly some of the salient
observations to be drawn from the account of the perse-
cution which followed Stephen’s death, and the conse-
quences of the scattering of the Christians. I would assert
from the outset that it was only that group of Christians
which centered around Stephen and the Seven, that is,
the Hellenists and possibly other small sectarian syn-
agogues who held similar views, who were persecuted
and driven out of Jerusalem. Luke records that the perse-
cution was &dquo;against the church&dquo; and they &dquo;all were scat-
tered,&dquo; but his addition of &dquo;except the apostles&dquo; is quite
inconsistent with the rest of the statement. Either (a) it is
added in order to safeguard the reputation for courage of
the Twelve; that is, no mere persecution would drive them
from their posts; when in fact theywere scattered with the
rest of the Christians. Or, (b) this was not a general
persecution but only of the Hellenists; the Christians in
the &dquo;Twelve&dquo; party being unmolested. This would seem
to be the likelier situation. The Christians grouped around
the Twelve, who &dquo;continued daily with one accord in the
temple&dquo; (Acts 2:46), would not be likely to have held any
brief for Stephen’s radical, anti-temple views, and there-
fore they would not likely have incurred the hostility of the
Jerusalem mob. I conclude, then, that it was the Hellenist
group that was persecuted and scattered.
21
 We turn now to consider the missionary activity that
these scattered Hellenists engaged in. In Acts 8:4-13 we
have an account of Philip’s missionary endeavors. Philip
was the second listed of the Seven and presumably was
looked upon as the Hellenist leader after Stephen’s death.
We may take him to symbolize the Hellenist Christian
group. He preaches in Samaria. It is interesting to note
that in Luke’s view, Philip’s success in Samaria is not quite
&dquo;above board&dquo; until Peter and John (symbolizing the
Twelve party) have given it their review and blessing. Luke
seems intent on preserving the pre-eminence or at least
the priority of the Apostolate.
This is further evidenced when we consider the follow-
ing fact. In the next reference to the mission activities of
the Hellenists (Acts 11:19), we read that they were
&dquo;preaching the word to none but unto Jews only.&dquo; Again it
would seem that Luke wishes to give the honor of first
preaching to the Gentiles to members of the Apostolic
group (Acts 15:7). Hence the Peter and Cornelius inci-
dent, and, it might be argued, the conversion of the
&dquo;chosen vessel for the Gentiles,&dquo; the apostle Paul, are
inserted between the two sections dealing with the mis-
sion of those scattered at Stephen’s death.
It is possible, however, that there is some basis in factfor
the emphasis of Acts 11:19. It does appear as though the
first field for missionary enterprise on the part of these
dispersed Hellenists was not Gentile, in the absolute sense
of the word, but Samaritan. The reason for this need not
have been any distaste for, or disbelief in, the mission to
the Gentiles on the part of these Hellenist Christians, but
rather it lay in the expediency or tactical advantage of
missionary activity amongst the Samaritans. It would
appear that this Hellenist sect, a marginal group within
Judaism prior to the time of Jesus, had much in common
with the Samaritans.
Stephen’s speech contains several pro-Samaritan over-
tones. For example, he mentions that Abraham had
bought land in Canaan (despite Acts 7:5) at Sychem
(Shechem) and that Jacob was buried there. Both these
facts are contradicted by the Hebrew Old Testament
22
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
account. There it is Jacob who bought the ground from
the sons of Emmor, though he himself was buried at
Hebron. However, there is probably Samaritan tradition to
support the facts as they are in Stephen’s speech; facts
which give prominence to Shechem, for Shechem is the
sacred city of the Samaritans (Cadbury, 102-105). Other
common ground possibly shared by the Samaritans and
this marginal group might be: the anti-Jerusalem-temple
bias, and the prominence given to Moses - the Samari-
tans accepting as canonical only the Pentateuch. Thus
Samaria would have been a much more likely field for
these Hellenists to start their Christian preaching in.
In conclusion, I am asserting that this splinter group
within the early Church carried on the first missionary
work of the Church, and that amongst the Samaritans, in
the first instance. John 4:38, &dquo;other men labored and you
(the Twelve) have entered into their labor:’ coming as it
does in the context of Jesus’ encounter with a Samaritan
woman and her fellow villagers, is most likely a subtle
testimony.on John’s part to this very same fact.
SO(IRCE MATERIAL
Arndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W.1957. A Greek-English Lexicon o
f the
New Testament. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).
Cadbury, Henry J. 1955. The Book of Acts in History. (New York:
Harper).
Cullmann, O. 1955. "The Significance of the Qumran Texts," Journal
o/ Biblical Literature 74:3, 221.
Foakes-Jackson, F. J. and Lake, Kirsopp (eds.). 1920-33. The Begin-
nings o/ Christianity, 5 Vols. (London: Macmillan).
Knox, W. L. 1948. The Acts of the Apostles. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
to the Hebrews. (London: Hodder
Manson, William. 1951. The Epistle
and Stoughton).
Owen, H. P. 1954-55. "Stephen’s Vsion in Acts," New Testament
Studies 1, 224ff.
Robinson, J. A. T 1957. Jesus and His Coming. (London: S.C.M.
Press).
Simon, Marcel. 1958. St. Stephen and the Hellenists. (London: Long-
mans).