Shekhinah & Spirit of Pentecost

To whom did the spirit of God go when it left the temple? Luke would have it enter the first Christians, Josephus that it went over to the victorious Romans.

War, VI, v, 3., p. 582

Moreover, at that feast we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner court of the Temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard the sound of a great multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.”

Acts 2:1-4

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. {2} And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. {3} Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. {4} All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.

Tacitus, Histories, V. 13, p. 657

The doors of the Temple were opened on a sudden, and a voice greater than human was heard, that the gods were retiring, and at the same time there was a great motion perceived, as if they were going out of it, which some esteemed to be caused of horror.

Josephus’ Jewish War was published by 75 CE, while Luke’s Acts were written much later. Crossan and his committee date Acts in their third strata, 120-150 CE. Luke and most others with an interest in the Jews must have been familiar with Josephus’ works. [The inventory is from Crossan, J.D., The Historical Jesus, Harper/Collins, San Francisco, 1991, pp. 427-434.]

Tacitus, also writing later, is believed to have followed Josephus’ account in his History where he is dealing with the Jewish war. His interest in the story is that the Spirit deserted the Jews and settled on the Romans, ensuring their victory.
War, 5.9.4, p. 563

Wherefore I cannot but suppose that God has fled out of his sanctuary and stands on the side of those against whom you fight.

In his generally anti-Jewish stance Luke has the Shekhinah, or Spirit of God, leave the Jews and enter the early Christians. This shows the divine succession from the Jews to the Christians was ordained by God. The “great multitude” in Josephus leave the temple and Luke has them enter the multitude of Christians at Pentecost. This Pentecost event is truly the beginning of what developed into a Christian church.

Luke, or whoever wrote the works attributed to him, mined Josephus for many events which were then written into early church history. This is but another. The Death of Herod for an example.

That Luke could take an event from Josephus that happened in 69 CE and put it back to the 30’s is not unusual. This telescoping is a common method of Hellenistic writers, even those with less of an overt propaganda agenda. We see the same thing happening in the episode of the Gerasene Swine. A Roman naval victory on the Sea of Galilee in 67 CE is put back into the life-time of Jesus, again in the 30’s.
 

The Nazarite’s Vow

Both Herod and Paul were suspected of not being true Jews by the orthodox population. Herod because of his long residence in Rome, where he must have broken with the tradition by eating with pagans if nothing else. Paul was in the same strife of dealing too closely with the pagans, and eating with the uncircumcised. Both had to try and prove to the loyal, (and radical) Jews that they were orthodox.
 

Josephus Ant. XIX, vi, 1. He (Herod Agrippa) also came to Jerusalem and offered all the sacrifices that belonged to him, and omitted nothing which the law required; on which account he ordered that many of the Nazarites should have their head shorn [at his expense].	(Acts 21:23-24) So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. {24} Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law."
Ant. XIX, vii, 4. However, there was a certain man of the Jewish nation at Jerusalem, who appeared to be very accurate in the knowledge of the law. His name was Simon. This man got together an assembly, while the king was absent in Caesarea, and had the insolence to accuse him as not living holily, and that he might be excluded from the temple, since it belonged to native Jews.	(Acts 23:27-28) When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, who had seen him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd. They seized him, {28}  shouting, "Fellow Israelites, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this place; more than that, he has actually brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place."

Both failed to convince the ultra-orthodox and then had to reside in Caesarea. Also, Paul gets along too well with the Romans. He meets them almost as an equal, and enjoys extraordinary protection and privileges from them. This is where Luke seems to be at his worst is disguising Paul’s treachery. Paul went over to the Romans as did Josephus himself.
 

Herod’s Death

Luke takes the wrong Herod’s death, which is recorded in Josephus, and gives it an obvious theological meaning.

Ant. XIX, viii, 2.

At which festival [to honour Caesar], a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province...On the second day of which shows he [Agrippa] put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came to the theatre early in the morning, at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflections of the sun’s rays... and presently his flatterers cried out,... that he was a god:... Upon this the king did not rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery... A severe pain arose in his belly... therefore he looked to his friends and said, “I, whom you called a god, am commanded presently to depart this life... And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days he departed this life...

Acts 12:21-23

{21} On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat on the platform, and delivered a public address to them. {22} The people kept shouting, "The voice of a god, and not of a mortal!" {23} And immediately, because he had not given the glory to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.

Herod Agrippa had spent most of his life in Rome, as a hostage for his father’s loyalty. When Caligula was made Emperor he was freed and made king of Judea. When he arrived in Judea he had a hard time convincing the population that he was a proper Jew according to their laws. He made donations to the temple and publicly demonstrated his piety at every opportunity [Antiquities 19. 6.]. His public works were extensive, both in Jerusalem and neighbouring countries [Ant. 19. 7.]. Claudius confirmed his rule.

He tried to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, but that was too much for the Roman governor, Marcus. He reported the building project to Caesar, “who sent to Agrippa to leave off the building of those walls.” Herod “obeyed, thinking it not proper to contradict Claudius.” Later, Herod invited five of the local kings to a meeting. The Romans did not take kindly to this. Marcus ordered the kings to return home immediately. “This was very ill taken by Herod.” [Ant. 19. 8.] However, they and he obeyed.

By now the Romans were suspicious as to Herod Agrippa’s intentions. Did he want to make a bid for independent rule? When Herod showed up for the festival to celebrate the birthday of Caesar Claudius, the god, he sealed his fate by accepting the crowd’s acclamation that he was a god. Now, in the Roman empire there was room for only one god-man and that was the emperor. What Herod did, in effect, was to accept the crowd’s acclaim of being equal to Claudius. This was not politic.

The Romans practiced poisoning as political policy. Claudius’ own brother Germanicus met his end by this method. Why should Herod Agrippa be immune to such Roman practice? Josephus gives it away in the line Herod speaks to his followers: “I, whom you called a god, am commanded presently to depart this life...” Simply, Herod was done away with by the Romans. Because of his popularity he was becoming dangerous to the Roman’s Peace.
[Or, he died from an ulcer brought on by the problems of ruling the Jews, while pleasing the Romans.]
 

Theudas & Judas

It has long been noted that in Acts Luke makes an historical blunder it the speach he has Gamaliel give to the Sanhedrian. He collapses the names two ‘bandits’ together who were executed by the Romans. He has Gamaliel say they were at the same time whereas they were seperated by many years. Luke also reverses the chronological order of the two names. Christian apologists, such as Barnett, try to explain this error away:

In Gamaliel's speech to the Sanhedrin he states:
“For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered.” (Acts 5:36-37)

"Judas the Galilean" is straightforward. He led an uprising at the changeover of government in Judaea from the Herods to the Romans which occurred in AD 6.

The only "Theudas" known to historical records was a prophet who arose c. AD 45, that is, not “before" but "after" Judas. Many accuse Luke of error at this point. Theudas, however, was not an uncommon name and the period before AD 6 was very turbulent, especially after the death of Herod in 4 BC. Indeed, had he placed Theudas after Judas, Luke would be really open to criticism, since Gamaliel's speech occurred about ten years before the Theudas known to historians. As it stands, given Luke's care in other areas where he can be checked and the lack of information about Theudas, it is better to give Luke the benefit of the doubt. [Barnett, P., Is the New Testament History?, Hodder & Stoughton, Sydney, 1986, p. 149. Emphasis mine C.N.C.]

First, how can: ‘The only “Theudas” known to historical records’ be ‘not an uncommon name’?

I do not “give Luke the benefit of the doubt” in this case, for the answer to Luke’s passage is to be found, again, in Josephus. We find it in the Antiquities,. 20. 5. 1-2. We have the mention, the only mention, of Theudas in paragraph 1. Following immediately, in paragraph 2, we have the mention of the “sons of Judas of Galilee” and of “Judas” himself. So, in Josephus we have Luke’s order of mention, not chronologically but as explanation. Luke read the Antiquities and followed the order of the paragraphs - Theudas, then Judas - uncritically.

paragraph 1. ...Now it came to pass, that while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people... They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem...

paragraph 2. ...the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius [Quirinius] came to take an account of the estates of the Jews...

Also, I am not convinced that Gamaliel’s speech can be dated where Luke puts it, if Gamaliel actually gave it at all. Luke would have Gamaliel’s speech in about AD 34, whereas Theudas’ actions were in the period of Cuspius Fadus, AD 44-46.

Barnett’s purpose is clear, but not his logic! In that, he is much like Luke himself.

Some writers postulate another Judas is meant [Thackeray, note to War, 2. 8. 1. Loeb.], others another Theudas; just to get Luke out of his historical blunder.

It will be noticed, however, that there is no great similarity between the two stories apart from the name Theudas, which was nearly as common as the habit of following self-trumpeting upstarts, and we cannot be certain that the two incidents are the same. [Williamson, The World of Josephus, p. 129]

Yet, the Loeb translation of Eusebius’ History, by Kirsopp Lake in 1926, has the following sensible footnote,:

It is remarkable that Eusebius did not take notice that this Theudas cannot really have been referred to by Gamaliel, who was speaking many years before the time of Fadus. Most modern writers on Acts think that nevertheless the Theudas of Acts is the Theudas of Josephus and explain the speech as literary fiction. Some think that “Luke” was misled by Josephus, who happens to mention Theudas in the same context as Judas of Galilee. [Eusebius, History, Loeb, vol. 1, p. 134-135. n. 1]

Rather than multiplying Judases and Theudases it is certainly more reasonable to understand Luke was following Josephus. The mistake of reading the two names in the same context, even to repeating the order of his words, and then putting them into the mouth of Gamaliel demonstrates the dependence of Luke upon Josephus. It follows that if Luke is using Josephus’ account from the Antiquities he must have been writing after it was published in the year 93 or 95.
 

Egyptian Bandit

In the book of Acts Luke has the Roman tribune question Saul/Paul about whether he was the ‘Egyptian bandit’ who had recently led the people out onto the Mount of Olives. This is very strange behaviour for a Roman garrison commander? Just a casual aside to Paul before allowing him to speak to a rioting crowd! I do not believe a word of Luke’s account.

Acts 21:38

Then you are not the Egyptian who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand assassins out into the wilderness?"

War 2.8.5.

But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former [prophet]; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which is called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place;... but Felix prevented this attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers,... insomuch that when it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away with a few others, while the greatest part of those who were with him were either destroyed or taken alive.

Ant. 20.8.6.

Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem, one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the mount of Olives, as it was called... He said further, that he would show them from hence, how at his command the walls of Jerusalem would fall down... Now when Felix [governor 52-60] was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen, from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more.

These events from Josephus were concurrent with those of Luke’s Acts. It will be noted that in the two passages from Josephus the “Egyptian’ is not named. Neither does Luke name him, as he is following Josephus. This passage is related to the ‘Theudas and Judas’ found in this book and is interesting in demonstrating the Roman response to a Prophet leading thousands of people into the wilderness for a miracle.
 

Paul’s Assassins, Felix and the Sicarii

Saul/Paul was not beloved of the zealous Jews, who put the Law before everything. Saul/Paul was the worst type to them, an apostate, and an active one at that.

The forty Jews who swore the oath to kill Paul were very likely, if not certainly, those Sicarii described by Josephus. They certainly seem to follow the same method of assassination.

Acts 23:12-15

In the morning the Jews joined in a conspiracy and bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. {13} There were more than forty who joined in this conspiracy. {14} They went to the chief priests and elders and said, "We have strictly bound ourselves by an oath to taste no food until we have killed Paul. {15} Now then, you and the council must notify the tribune to bring him down to you, on the pretext that you want to make a more thorough examination of his case. And we are ready to do away with him before he arrives."

War 2.13.3.

... There sprang up another sort of robbers in Jerusalem, which were called the Sicarii, who slew men in the daytime, and in the midst of the city; this they did chiefly at the festivals, when they mingled themselves among the multitude, and concealed daggers under their garments, with which they stabbed those that were their enemies.

Why were they so determined to assassinate Saul/Paul? Perhaps they had found out that he was a Roman agent working to divide the Jews. Perhaps they thought he was trying to instil the hated gentile religion within the Jews both overseas and now even in Jerusalem itself. In any case Josephus writes about these assassins at length.

What about the Roman governor who protected Saul/Paul for two years at Caesarea

(Acts 24:22-27} But Felix, who was rather well informed about the Way, adjourned the hearing with the comment, "When Lysias the tribune comes down, I will decide your case." Then he ordered the centurion to keep him in custody, but to let him have some liberty and not to prevent any of his friends from taking care of his needs.

Some days later when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him speak concerning faith in Christ Jesus. And as he discussed justice, self-control, and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and said, "Go away for the present; when I have an opportunity, I will send for you." At the same time he hoped that money would be given him by Paul, and for that reason he used to send for him very often and converse with him.

After two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and since he wanted to grant the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul in prison.

Felix in Tacitus:

Pallas’ brother, the knight Antonius Felix, who was governor of Judea, showed less moderation. Backed by vast influence, he believed himself free to commit any crime... Moreover, Felix stimulated outbreaks by injudicious disciplinary measures. [Tacitus, Annals 12. 53-4]

One of these governors, Antonius Felix, played the tyrant with the spirit of a slave, plunging into all manner of cruelty and lust, and marrying Drusilla (Herod Agrippa II’s sister). [Tacitus, Histories, 5. 9.]

Josephus:

Wherefore Felix (the governor) persuaded one of Jonathan’s (the high priest) most faithful friends, a citizen of Jerusalem whose name was Dorcas, to bring robbers [Sicarii] upon Jonathan in order to kill him; and this he did by promising to give him a great deal of money for so doing. Dorcas complied with the proposal. [Ant. 20. 8. 5.]

What makes me suspect Luke’s version of Saul/Paul is not only that he has no knowledge of Paul’s letters, but Luke is writing a spy story. As an official propagandist he would have seen everything through the eyes of a trained intelligence officer. He tells a dramatic story, very much as a modern subversive operation would be fictionalized. What ever we say about the arrest scene, at least, it is at least complete fiction:

Acts 21:31-40

{31} While they were trying to kill him, word came to the tribune of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. {32} Immediately he took soldiers and centurions and ran down to them. When they saw the tribune and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. {33} Then the tribune came, arrested him, and ordered him to be bound with two chains; he inquired who he was and what he had done. {34} Some in the crowd shouted one thing, some another; and as he could not learn the facts because of the uproar, he ordered him to be brought into the barracks. {35} When Paul came to the steps, the violence of the mob was so great that he had to be carried by the soldiers. {36} The crowd that followed kept shouting, "Away with him!" {37} Just as Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the tribune, "May I say something to you?" The tribune replied, "Do you know Greek? {38} Then you are not the Egyptian who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand assassins out into the wilderness?" {39} Paul replied, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of an important city; I beg you, let me speak to the people." {40} When he had given him permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the people for silence; and when there was a great hush, he addressed them in the Hebrew language.

That a Roman tribune would allow his prisoner to harangue a rioting crowd, and in Hebrew which he did not understand, is nothing less than absurd. Imagine, even today, a police chief allowing his prisoner to give his defence from the steps of the station, immediately after arrest! Not very likely, and less likely in a rebellious Roman province.

Acts 22: 25-29

{25} But when they had tied him up with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, "Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who is uncondemned?" {26} When the centurion heard that, he went to the tribune and said to him, "What are you about to do? This man is a Roman citizen." {27} The tribune came and asked Paul, "Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?" And he said, "Yes." {28} The tribune answered, "It cost me a large sum of money to get my citizenship." Paul said, "But I was born a citizen." {29} Immediately those who were about to examine him drew back from him; and the tribune also was afraid, for he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him.

Several points are worth investigating here. First, if Paul was a Roman citizen since birth why did he allow himself to be flogged previously? And, if not from birth then when and how did Paul become a Roman? What service did he render the Romans, remembering Josephus was only made a Roman citizen after helping the Romans win the Jewish war? Now, the tribune would not have to pay “a large sum of money to get my citizenship”, because he would be given citizenship, free, for his army service. Luke does not know his Roman army as well as he should. Is Paul a Roman citizen? Luke says he is, but not Paul himself. Nowhere in Paul’s Epistles does he claim Roman citizenship; not even when it would have saved him from one of the eight floggings he says he underwent. (Acts 22:11ff.) But this is just another of Luke’s historical blunders.
 

Acts 23:16-24 {16} Now the son of Paul's sister heard about the ambush; so he went and gained entrance to the barracks and told Paul. {17} Paul called one of the centurions and said, "Take this young man to the tribune, for he has something to report to him." {18} So he took him, brought him to the tribune, and said, "The prisoner Paul called me and asked me to bring this young man to you; he has something to tell you." {19} The tribune took him by the hand, drew him aside privately, and asked, "What is it that you have to report to me?" {20} He answered, "The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul down to the council tomorrow, as though they were going to inquire more thoroughly into his case. {21} But do not be persuaded by them, for more than forty of their men are lying in ambush for him. They have bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink until they kill him. They are ready now and are waiting for your consent." {22} So the tribune dismissed the young man, ordering him, "Tell no one that you have informed me of this."

From where did this Deus ex Familia come? We are told nothing about Paul having a sister or a nephew with connections to both the temple and the Roman garrison. Were Paul’s whole family supporters of the Romans? Perhaps Paul had some connections with Herod Agrippa’s family?
 

{23} Then he summoned two of the centurions and said, "Get ready to leave by nine o'clock tonight for Caesarea with two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen. {24} Also provide mounts for Paul to ride, and take him safely to Felix the governor."

We are told of the kingly escort given Paul by the Romans. This is where Luke brings in the impossible detail of the number of troops needed to escort an unknown Jewish trouble-maker! He is even provided mounts to ride. A Jewish prisoner would surely have been made to walk with the soldiers, Paul must have been a very privileged or important person indeed!

Then he summoned two of the centurions and said, "Get ready to leave by nine o'clock tonight for Caesarea with two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen."

Another problem about Luke is that the Roman army was extremely reluctant to march at night. Josephus only has two night marches. One is where the general and his body guard have to escape an ambush. The troops they left behind were massacred by the Jews during that night. The other is at the siege of Jerusalem; a legion marched through secured country to join Titus the next day.

Paul’s escort and night-flight stretch my credulity about the whole episode. That the Romans rescued one of their agents from the crowd when his cover was blown, I can believe. That he was a Roman citizen, for services rendered, is also credible. That the agent was spirited to the main Roman headquarters at Caesarea for protection makes sense. That he remained there for a couple of years in an intelligence capacity, with frequent conversations with the main players in the coming war, is more convincing than Luke’s fairytale.

Felix, the Roman governor of the province, was one of harshest governors of the period. He disliked the Jews intensely. That he would spend time conversing with Paul on theological matters is absurd. Paul would more likely be giving Felix information on the divisions amongst the Jews. The next governor Paul dealt with, Festus Porcius, had a name that was an insult to devout Jews, ‘Happy Pig’!

Paul was further rewarded by being escorted to Rome, for his safety.

Acts 28:16

When we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself,...

That Paul was retired to Rome, to a safe-house, is in line with the Roman practice of reward for its agents. Josephus himself was lodged in very secure quarters, the emperor’s old house. After this Paul drops out of history, possibly to a further safe-house in Spain.

Josephus describes a Saul who was an active participant in the war, on the collaborators’ side.

Ant. XX, ix, 4. p. 424.

Costobarus, also, and  Saul, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of royal the family; and so they obtained favour among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa: but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those who were weaker than themselves.

War II, xx, 1. p. 497.

After this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most eminent of the Jews swam away from the city, as from a ship when it was going to sink; Costobarus, therefore, and Saul, who were brethren, together with Phillip, who was the commander of King Agrippa’s forces, ran away from the city, and went to Cestius [at Caesarea]... However, Cestius sent Saul and his friends, at their own desire, to Achaia, to Nero, to inform him of the great distress they were in;...

Is this merely a coincidence that Saul, with the commander of the King’s troops, goes to Caesarea and then is sent, ‘at their own desire’, to the emperor? This is almost too much, taking in what we know of Saul/Paul from Acts.

Saul/Paul himself, if the Letter to the Philippians is truely his, gives the act away:

Phil. 4:22

All the Saints send their greetings, especially those of the Imperial household.

However, Josephus mentions a certain unnamed disgraced Jew who, while living in Rome, fraudulently received funds for the Temple in Jerusalem and spent them on himself.

Ant. 18.3.5.

There was a man who was a Jew, but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws, and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same; but in all respects a wicked man: he then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners.

Acts does not go beyond the point where Saul/Paul arrives and settles in comfortable circumstances in Rome.

Acts 28:30-31

{30} He lived there two whole years at his own expense and welcomed all who came to him, {31} proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.

While this identification is fanciful there are some parallels to consider. Both characters are disgraced Jews who have transgressed the Jewish laws. Both are in Rome. Both teach about the Jewish Law. Both had associates in their ministry. Both have been suspected of fraud concerning the donations to the Temple in Jerusalem. Where did Saul/Paul get the considerable funds to sponsor the four Nazarite’s vow?
 

Stoning of Stephen/James

Luke, writing well after the destruction of the temple, would certainly have known of the stoning of James, the Lord’s brother and head of the early church. Yet he barely mentions James at all, and then only in reference to the actions of Paul. The early tradition, and Paul’s Epistles, both tell us of the tension between Paul, the apostle to the gentiles and the Arch-Apostle James, head of the church. Luke substituted a shadowy figure, Stephen, for the vastly more famous and important James.

Acts 6:12, 56-60

...They took Stephen by surprise, and arrested him and brought him before the Sanhedrin.

“Look,” he said, “I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” But they covered their ears, and with a loud shout all rushed together against him. Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him; and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

Eusebius

So the Scribes and Pharisees made James stand on the Sanctuary parapet [crown] and shouted to him: “Righteous one, whose word we are all obliged to accept, the people are going astray after Jesus who was crucified..” He replied as loudly as he could: “Why do you question me about the Son of Man? I tell you, He is sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Great Power,...”

So they went up and threw down the Righteous one. Then they said to each other “Let us stone James the Righteous,” and began to stone him....

Josephus

“But the younger Ananus, who as I said had received the high priesthood, was headstrong in character and audacious in the extreme.. Being a man of this kind, Ananus thought that he had a convenient opportunity, as Festus was dead and Albinus still on the way. So he assembled a council of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ, and several others, on a charge of breaking the law, and handed them over to be stoned...”

Let us look at our sources, the book of Acts, Josephus and Eusebius. Only Acts has the stoning of Stephen and the others have the stoning of James the Righteous.
 

Then the High Priest intervened with all his supporters from the party of the Sadducees. Prompted by jealousy, they arrested the apostles and had them put in the common gaol. Acts 5;17,18

...and they had the apostles called in, gave orders for them to be flogged,... And so they left the presence of the Sanhedrin. Acts 5;40,41

The whole of the assembly... elected Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit,... Acts 6;5

...They took Stephen by surprise, and arrested him and brought him before the Sanhedrin. Acts 6;12

“Look,” he said, “I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” But they covered their ears, and with a loud shout all rushed together against him. Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him; and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he knelt down and cried out in a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he died.

And Saul approved of their killing him. That day a severe persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria. Acts 7:56-8:1

Eusebius, History of the Church, Book 2, ch. 23.

He (James the Righteous) alone was permitted to enter the Holy Place, for his garments were not of wool but of Linen. He used to enter the Sanctuary alone, and was often found on his knees beseeching forgiveness for the people,.. Because of his unsurpassable righteousness he was called the Righteous...

So the Scribes and Pharisees made James stand on the Sanctuary parapet [crown] and shouted to him: “Righteous one, whose word we are all obliged to accept, the people are going astray after Jesus who was crucified..” He replied as loudly as he could: “Why do you question me about the Son of Man?. I tell you, He is sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Great Power,...”

So they went up and threw down the Righteous one. Then they said to each other “Let us stone James the Righteous,” and began to stone him....

Immediately after this Vespasian began to besiege them.

This is the full account, which in agreement with Clement, is given by Hegesippus.

Josephus has also recounted his death in Antiquities Book XX.
“Caesar sent Albinus to Judea as procurator, when he was informed of the death of Festus. But the younger Ananus, who as I said had received the high priesthood, was headstrong in character and audacious in the extreme.. Being a man of this kind, Ananus thought that he had a convenient opportunity, as Festus was dead and Albinus still on the way. So he assembled a council of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ, and several others, on a charge of breaking the law, and handed them over to be stoned...” Ant. 20. 9. 1.

In book of Acts, 5;17 - 8;3, Josephus’ Jewish War, and Hegesippus via Eusebius, we find parallel ‘stoning’ episodes. The story is the same only the name was changed. Instead of James ‘the Righteous’ we have Stephen ‘a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit’. There are several reasons to believe the two ‘stonings’ were the same event. Eusebius, see above, made the identification following earlier historians.

The parallels are:
1. The ‘High Priest’ is the persecutor.
2. The persecuted leader is ‘Righteous’ or ‘full of faith’.
3. Both the leader and his companions arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin.
4. The companions are let off, but the leader is stoned.

There is another connection between the account given by the book of Acts and Eusebius. In Acts there is a quote from Stephen which centres on the seldom used expression, “Son of Man,”

Stephen: “I can see heaven thrown open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”  [Acts 7;56]

James: “Why do you question me about the Son of Man?. I tell you, He is sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Great Power,...” [Eusebius, 2. 23.]

Is Eusebius simply merging the two accounts through ignorance? Or, is he giving the correct story as it was passed down through the historians? He states that he is using Hegesippus [100-180] and Clement [150-215] as his sources. We cannot check the veracity of his statement because these historians are lost to us except for the fragments found in Eusebius himself. However, in those places where we can check Eusebius with a received source, he is generally very accurate. Also, Stephen is not mentioned anywhere in Joesphus, although James is mentioned and as the leader of the early Christians. The Gospel of Thomas verifies this:

(12) The disciples said to Jesus: “We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?” Jesus said to them, “Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.” [The Gospel of Thomas, Logia 12.]

The other Lucan parallel is to his Gospel, where Jesus at his execution says, “Forgive them for they know not what they do” and Stephen makes the same exclamation at his execution. Is this a common blessing of the early Christians on their executors? Or is it merely another of Luke’s literary devices?

I, therefore, put forward the following reconstruction. - Stephen and James were one and the same person. He had two names, like Saul/Paul, or the name Stephen was a title rather than a personal name. Stephen comes from the Greek word stefanoz for Crown or the Crowned One. Also James was thrown down from the ‘crown’ or parapet of the temple. We read from the translation of the Temple Scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Chambers shall be made between its [the temple’s] gates along the foundation as far up as its ‘crowns’ (= crenellations: Yadin). [The Temple Scroll, ch. XL, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Vermes, G., Penguin, 3rd ed., p. 141]

The order of the events differs but little, although in Acts there is the embellishment of Saul’s involvement. Stephen and James are both respected holy men at the head of dissident groups. The execution led to a persecution in each case and a flight of the disciples and followers into the Judean desert; where, incidentally, Qumran was located and the Zealots/Essenes operated.

The episode in Acts was put early in the book as a literary device, it fits the story better being at the start rather than at the end, which deals exclusively with Paul’s history.
 

As he, (Stephen) died, Acts reported him to have cried out, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them’! But that was very like what the dying Jesus, too, was reputed to have said; and this reminiscent echo by the writer of Acts is so manifestly deliberate that it arouses suspicions about the detailed veracity of the whole story of Stephen - suspicions which are deepened by the content of the speech attributed to the martyr, since surely no one can have taken down in detail what he said at the time - and besides, the version given here bears many specific signs of later literary invention.

Doubts are also inspired by Acts' statement that Paul was present at Stephen’s death: ‘the witnesses [at the trial?] laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul... And Saul was among those who approved of his murder.’ This makes a highly suitable and dramatic prelude to his conversion from persecutor to apostle, which follows very shortly afterwards. But suspicions that his link with Stephen's martyrdom is a literary device rather than a historical fact are sharpened by Paul's own statement that before his conversion he had experienced no contact at all with the Judaean Christians. Indeed, even after it, he at first only got to know Cephas (Peter) and James the just, the brother of Christ. Apart from them, ‘I remained unknown by sight [or, personally] to Christ's congregations in Judaea’

Attempts have been made to get round this awkward point by suggesting that Paul was only referring here to the regions of Judaea other than Jerusalem, its capital. But it is far easier to suppose that he means what he said: he was a Jew of the Dispersion who did not come to Jerusalem until after he had been converted, so that the statement by Acts that he was an onlooker at Stephen's death in Jerusalem must be regarded as fictitious. [Archibald Robertson, Quoted in Grant, M., Saint Paul, Scribners & Sons, New York, 1976, p. 110]

Due to the extraordinary political and religious events of the times between the death of Jesus and the events which led to the Jewish War less than thirty years later, caution was in the wind. Deception and disguise were the order of the day for the powerless. The contemporary Scrolls are extremely allusive and even sometimes written in code. That the history of Acts is accurate in all its timing and events goes against almost all of the contemporary Jewish literature.

We can dismiss the account in Acts as to Stephen’s being stoned while Paul watches. Paul, in his Epistles, never mentions the stoning, nor Stephen for that matter. He also denies he had ever come to Jerusalem until long after the stoning event was supposed to have happened.

Josephus certainly would have noted the earlier stoning of Stephen, head of the dissidents, as he did that of James, head of the dissident party in Jerusalem. The event would also have to have been against Roman law, and surely such a serious breach as that would have been mentioned!
 

[Introduction]  [Gospels:Page 1]  [Gospels:Page 2][Gospels:Page 3]  [Home]