Acts 7 depicts a meeting of the Sanhedrin at which Stephen delivers a fiery and inflammatory rebuke of the council members present. The council becomes a raging mob and the members present drag Stephen out and stone him. Saul is a witness but not a participant in the killing. I am wondering how Saul came to be in the place where the stoning occurred. Was he a member of the Sanhedrin? An advisor to the Sanhedrin, perhaps in the capacity of a disciple/assistant of Gamaliel? A passer-by on a path outside the chambers?
I next read of Saul in Chapter 9 where he is threatening the members of the Jesus Movement. Threatening with what? Jail time? Trial? Death? How would Saul have gained the authority to make these threats, and is it likely that he had a militia at his disposal? Would he have had to charge the suspects with something? He is said to have an order from the High Priest authorizing him to seize individuals in the synagogues in Damascus. Again, it sounds like he would have needed to be commanding some soldiers to carry this out. What kind of soldiers? Would the Temple in Jerusalem be recognized as an entity that could arrest people in a different province of the Empire outside of Judea? Who were the men travelling with Saul (Acts 9:7) and how many might I suppose there were?
For a non-historian, there is a lot of wondering going on here.
Since Paul himself says he never met Jesus, I conclude that Paul probably got interested in the Way after AD 30. Perhaps he knew of Gamaliel’s suggestion that if the movement really sprang from divine sources, then it would be fruitless to act against it. Unlike the followers of Theudas and the Egyptian, however, Jesus’ followers did not lose their enthusiasm after their master’s death, so, Saul might reason, the people might think that Jesus was a different sort of leader, a greater prophet, perhaps even a messiah. This could cause Saul to seek steps to prevent the Way from gaining more momentum than it already had, and the persecution of individual followers might be one step he could take (Is this how terrorists are born?). But a one-man persecution squad probably wouldn’t have been effective, and so Saul would have needed (1) helpers and (2) official authority and financial backing to mount some kind of campaign. It would have taken some time to satisfy both needs. So, did he spend AD 31 observing the fledgling Way, AD 32 lobbying the Jewish leadership, and 33 doing the actual arrests? Would he have wanted a salary for this work or would he have done it as a hobby? Would individual Sadducees bankroll a Pharisee activist? The Temple militia seems the likely arresting force, but how was it that their jurisdiction extended to Damascus. This does not seem unusual to Luke, for he has Ananias rationally afraid to go to the house where Saul is staying. Is it possible that the Sanhedrin and the leaders of the Damascus synagogues were operating hit squads under the Romans’ radar?
Stephen: I think the differences between Jesus’ case and that of Stephen the martyr are of two kinds. First, Stephen had given a really nasty speech, which caused the members of the Sanhedrin to violently react, rather than plot a legal remedy. There was no trial, no arguments, no appeal to the Law. They just couldn’t stand the castigation, so they struck at their accuser. The plot against Jesus was much more reasoned and they at least went through the motions of seeking justice. Second, the Sanhedrin didn’t have anything on Stephen that the Romans would have been interested in. So he called the Council members a few names. Pilate probably had a few choice names for them too. Jesus, on the other hand, was of the line of David from which the messiah was expected to spring, and some of his followers were also saying things like “Hosanna to the son of David”, etc. The Sanhedrin was happy to point this out to Pilate and let him be the bad guy. Jesus was very popular just then.
Fredbauck said
Stephen: I think the differences between Jesus’ case and that of Stephen the martyr are of two kinds. First, Stephen had given a really nasty speech, which caused the members of the Sanhedrin to violently react, rather than plot a legal remedy. There was no trial, no arguments, no appeal to the Law. They just couldn’t stand the castigation, so they struck at their accuser. The plot against Jesus was much more reasoned and they at least went through the motions of seeking justice. Second, the Sanhedrin didn’t have anything on Stephen that the Romans would have been interested in. So he called the Council members a few names. Pilate probably had a few choice names for them too. Jesus, on the other hand, was of the line of David from which the messiah was expected to spring, and some of his followers were also saying things like “Hosanna to the son of David”, etc. The Sanhedrin was happy to point this out to Pilate and let him be the bad guy. Jesus was very popular just then.
Stephen said
Good questions all.Another question – if the Sanhedrin could execute Stephen with no repercussions then why didn’t they execute Jesus? Why did they have to turn him over to the Romans?
I think it’s unlikely that Paul saw the execution of Stephen. I suspect Luke created the tale in order to highten his account of Paul’s “conversion” to Christianity, which is a really big deal in Acts. In the letter to Galatians, a letter where Paul describes his relationship to the members of the Jerusalem church, there is no indication that he was ever in Jerusalem before he became a Christian.
Your explanation has the ring of truth. Now that I can’t find any reference to either Gamaliel or an organized persecution outside of Acts (Are there any?), I am wondering why I never came to this conclusion. It answers my questions about any authority to persecute in Damascus and my misgivings about the accuracy of the complete story of Stephen all at once. Thanks.
Fredbauck said
Your explanation has the ring of truth. Now that I can’t find any reference to either Gamaliel or an organized persecution outside of Acts (Are there any?), I am wondering why I never came to this conclusion. It answers my questions about any authority to persecute in Damascus and my misgivings about the accuracy of the complete story of Stephen all at once. Thanks.
I think the chronology is difficult here. At the execution of Stephen Saul is depicted as a very young man. One or two years later he is supposedly a trusted official on the way to Damascus and his conversion. Stephen’s martyrdom may have been real, but there is little reason to think that Stephen’s speech before the Sanhedrin is historical. Same thing about Gamaliel’s speech: Incorrect chronology and invented to have Christian support from a respected Jewish scholar.
First we have to decide how reliable Acts is as a historical source. Not very IMO, especially as it pertains to Saul before he became Paul. Paul himself says nothing about any of this other than he was zealous for the law and admits that he used to persecute the church. All the details come from Acts. That being said, I think the high priest did have authority to arrest people using the Temple guards, as he did with Jesus. But that was right after Jesus attacked the moneychangers in the Temple courtyard. I find it unlikely that the high priest in Jerusalem had the authority to arrest diasporan Jews for heresy. The ones in question [in Damascus] were under Roman law. One also has to wonder what a disciple of the liberal-minded Gamaliel [the leading Pharisee of his day] was doing working for the Sadducean high priest. Later in Acts, he makes a big deal about being a Pharisee himself and NOT a Sadducee, since they deny the possibility of resurrection. Anything’s possible I guess, but everything should by taken with a grain of salt. Assuming it’s all true, it at least gives us an insight into the psychological pressures that Saul/Paul was under on his famous road to Damascus.
Fredbauck said
Acts 7 depicts a meeting of the Sanhedrin at which Stephen delivers a fiery and inflammatory rebuke of the council members present. The council becomes a raging mob and the members present drag Stephen out and stone him. Saul is a witness but not a participant in the killing. I am wondering how Saul came to be in the place where the stoning occurred. Was he a member of the Sanhedrin? An advisor to the Sanhedrin, perhaps in the capacity of a disciple/assistant of Gamaliel? A passer-by on a path outside the chambers?I next read of Saul in Chapter 9 where he is threatening the members of the Jesus Movement. Threatening with what? Jail time? Trial? Death? How would Saul have gained the authority to make these threats, and is it likely that he had a militia at his disposal? Would he have had to charge the suspects with something? He is said to have an order from the High Priest authorizing him to seize individuals in the synagogues in Damascus. Again, it sounds like he would have needed to be commanding some soldiers to carry this out. What kind of soldiers? Would the Temple in Jerusalem be recognized as an entity that could arrest people in a different province of the Empire outside of Judea? Who were the men travelling with Saul (Acts 9:7) and how many might I suppose there were?
For a non-historian, there is a lot of wondering going on here.
It’s interesting, I’m just making my way through Gerd Ludemann’s book on Acts. It’s all incredibly self-serving really and hard to take seriously.
The story about Simon, who practiced magic, unlike Peter who had the Holy spirit, who then see’s the truth and asks to buy God’s forgiveness.
One of my absolute favourites is when the church is being persecuted and the Sadducees expel all Christians in Jerusalem (by that time numbering in the thousands according to Luke, as much as 1/4 of the city’s population) EXCEPT the 12 apostles, who had already previously been arrested (because of jealously of their greatness?). I mean, c’mon, really? I’m old enough to know that Christian apologists will find some way to spin that as historically correct, as they do with everything else, but that claim really strains credulity.
I don’t trust much Acts has to say about Paul. It’s doubtful the author had access to the Pauline epistles and is creating legends around known oral traditions he was familiar with. Sure there are real historical figures included, and it seems the author has somewhat of familiarity with SOME of Paul’s itineraries, but that’s about it. Luke’s accounts really don’t mesh with the epistles.
Speaking in general terms, Paul wouldn’t have needed any appointed or delegated authority to do what he’s described as doing, which is to go around whipping up opposition to Christians in Jewish communities, which was already there. You only have to look at the history of witch hunts in Medieval Europe (believe it or not, that’s not just a term in modern politics), to know this. Does the name Matthew Hopkins ring a bell? (Vincent Price played him in a movie.)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
We can question the way Acts describes persecution of Christians, and we should–it’s a religious text, not a straight history. We s should not take it literally, any more than the gospels (which are a lot better written). However, the notion that Jewish authorities would turn a blind eye to Christian proselytizing is absurd on the face of it. Christian proselytizers were basically all Jewish in the beginning, and the local synagogues would have felt they had authority to police their activities, in a way that would not have been the case with pagans. The Romans would treat it as an internal quarrel, which is what it was at that point.
There would have been little tolerance for Christians coming to synagogues and trying to convince people Jesus was Messiah, and even less once they began converting pagans, and not making them follow the Jewish laws regarding diet, circumcision, etc. Honestly, their POV is not difficult to see at all, if one is objective. But their methods–well, let’s say they backfired. It’s so hard to know what impact your actions in the present day will have on the future. Hate begets hate, and today’s majority…..a good moral for all of us, no?
There were undoubtedly whippings, stonings, and certainly some deaths–lynchings would be the modern word–passions run out of hand, horrible things happen, everywhere. It was not a tolerant age, and frankly, the Middle East is still not a very tolerant place. Let’s consider it might have been even less so then.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)