This is indeed the most natural objection. If Luke reports such a long and detailed speech (Acts 7.2-53), we must suppose that one or more people present at the hearing kept the memory of the event. This leads to several reflections.
-
Philip was probably not present
Philip is often proposed as a possible source because Luke will stay at his house in Caesarea (Acts 21.8-10). However, nothing allows us to affirm that he attended the session of the . Like the other members of the Seven, he may have been kept away or may not have been admitted to the assembly.
-
Paul was probably not inside the Sanhedrin
Saul is explicitly mentioned at the (Acts 7.58), but Luke never has him appear in the council chamber. He was no doubt younger than the members of the and probably was not part of that institution. He could have known the general circumstances of the case, but it is not certain that he heard the whole speech.
-
A converted member of the Sanhedrin?
This hypothesis is particularly interesting. Luke clearly knows what was said within the council. He reports:
- the accusations of the false witnesses (Acts 6.13-14);
- the reaction of the members of the (Acts 6.15);
- their growing anger (Acts 7.54);
- the detail of Stephen's vision (Acts 7.55-56);
- the violent reaction of the judges (Acts 7.57).
These details suggest that a person present in the assembly was able to pass on his memories.
Now, the Gospels already mention members of the who were favorable to Jesus:
- Nicodemus (John 3.1; John 7.50-51);
- Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23.50-51).
Later, Luke notes that “a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith” (Acts 6.7). It is therefore not impossible that some priests, or even some members of the council, eventually converted and passed on their memories.
-
Gamaliel?
An old hypothesis, though entirely speculative, is that of . He had already adopted a moderate attitude toward the apostles (Acts 5.34-39). Some ancient Christian authors even supposed that he converted, but no text of the New Testament confirms it.
-
Luke himself probably condensed the speech
We should not imagine word-for-word shorthand. According to the practices of ancient historiography, Luke certainly summarized and organized Stephen's words. The speech we read is probably faithful in its content and thought, without necessarily being a verbatim reproduction.
The most interesting hypothesis
According to our conclusions, the most likely explanation is that one or more people present at the kept the memory of the speech and passed it on to the Church in Jerusalem, and finally to Luke.
It could be:
- a moderate member of the council;
- a converted priest (Acts 6.7);
- a disciple with access to the high-priestly circle, like the one mentioned in John 18.15-16;
- or else a combination of several witnesses.
It is even possible that Paul later completed these memories when he became Luke's companion. Thus, behind Acts 7, we may have the memory of an eyewitness who attended Stephen's hearing, a memory that Luke would then have shaped according to his method as a historian (Luke 1.1-4).
This hypothesis would explain the astonishing precision with which the psychological reactions of the and the dramatic progression of the account are described.