Reviewed by:

• The Cult of Stephen in Jerusalem: Inventing a Patron Martyr by Hugo Méndez
• Kyle Smith

Twenty years ago, in explaining the need for a comprehensive dossier on Stephen, François Bovon lamented what he characterized as a lack of dialogue between New Testament scholars and historians of Christianity in late antiquity ("The Dossier on Stephen, the First Martyr," HTR 96.3 [2003]: 279–315). The former, he said, stop with the Stephen of Acts; meanwhile, the latter do not start until the fourth century, with the rise of the cult of Stephen the martyr. Neither group cares to "bridge the gap" and unite "two phases of a continuous history."

Noble as Bovon's attempt at interdisciplinary reconciliation may have been, there was no "continuous history" of the first Christian martyr. Most especially not in Jerusalem. The Holy City—as Hugo Méndez makes clear in his important new contribution to the study of Stephen—was late to embrace its patron: Jerusalem "boasted numerous pilgrimage sites associated with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, [but] it lacked even a single tomb or monument associated with a local Christian martyr up to the late fourth century" (6). If Jerusalem wanted a civic hero, Stephen may have been the obvious choice, but cities do not "inherit their claims" on local saints; they curate them, Méndez says, "consciously shaping them to serve specific programs and ends" (12). After lying dormant for centuries, Stephen sprang to life again on distant shores, eventually making his way back to Jerusalem and the church of Hagia Sion, where his bones were reinterred on his feast day, December 26, in the year 415 c.e

To explain how Stephen was reintroduced to his city, Méndez focuses his study on the liturgical life of fifth-century Jerusalem. The city's "feasts, material relics, architectural spaces, and lectionary readings," he writes, all deepened the city's claims on Stephen "as a local patron" (16). It was, he continues, two local bishops of Jerusalem, John II and Juvenal—episcopal successors of Cyril—who were the most influential in "moving a once peripheral figure to the center of the city's ritual practice and memorialization" (11). John presided over the inventio of Stephen's relics and the transfer of his bones to Hagia Sion; Juvenal hastened the later dedication of "the largest ecclesiastical complex in the city . . . a grand [End Page 261] and imposing basilica located just outside its principal gate." By the mid-fifth century, it was Stephen who had "three days on the Jerusalem calendar at a time when Mary boasted only two and only a few dozen saints claimed even one" (59).

Stephen, the "first-born of the martyrs," sits at the head of the liturgical year—on the day after Christmas, Méndez explains—where he presides "over the entire choir of martyrs that follows" (25). But Christmas came late to Jerusalem, being forcibly imposed on the city in the sixth century. Instead of December 25, "Jerusalem interpreted the Epiphany [on January 6] as the starting point of its liturgical year" (53). Aware of the importance of December 26, Jerusalem did adopt that feast for Stephen, but it also developed another for him on January 7, "the second day of the Epiphany octave," which arose from a "desire to emulate the practice of those cities that accorded Stephen the first position in the annual cycle of martyr feasts" (101). At the same time, a third feast was added for Stephen following Easter, further strengthening the martyr's local prestige while simultaneously proclaiming Jerusalem's connection to Stephen "to the masses of visitors already flooding the city during those special seasons" (128).

Of course, and as Méndez explains throughout his book, a martyr's cult needs more than just days on the calendar to thrive. The Revelatio Sancti Stephani, a text that identifies "Christian Jerusalem as the preordained resting place" of Stephen's relics, casts the city as "the unique conduit of their power" and narrates...

审核人：

• 耶路撒冷的斯蒂芬崇拜：雨果·门德斯(Hugo Méndez)发明了一位守护神殉道者
• 凯尔·史密斯

20 年前，在解释史蒂芬的全面档案的必要性时，弗朗索瓦·博文 (François Bovon) 感叹他所描述的新约学者与古代晚期基督教历史学家之间缺乏对话（“The Dossier on Stephen, the First Martyr”，HTR 96.3 [2003]：279-315）。他说，前者止于使徒行传的司提反；同时，后者直到四世纪才开始，随着烈士斯蒂芬崇拜的兴起。任何一方都不关心“弥合差距”和统一“连续历史的两个阶段”。

尽管 Bovon 对跨学科和解的尝试可能是高尚的，但没有第一位基督教烈士的“连续历史”。尤其是在耶路撒冷。圣城——正如雨果·门德斯 (Hugo Méndez) 在他对斯蒂芬研究的重要新贡献中明确指出的那样——迟迟没有拥抱它的赞助人：耶路撒冷“拥有许多与耶稣的生、死和复活相关的朝圣地，[但]它缺乏甚至与直到四世纪末的当地基督教烈士相关的单个坟墓或纪念碑”（6）。如果耶路撒冷想要一位公民英雄，斯蒂芬可能是显而易见的选择，但城市不会“继承他们对当地圣徒的要求”；他们策划它们，Méndez 说，“有意识地塑造它们以服务于特定的项目和目的”(12)。在沉寂了数百年之后，ce

为了解释斯蒂芬是如何被重新引入他的城市的，门德斯将他的研究重点放在了 5 世纪耶路撒冷的礼仪生活上。他写道，这座城市的“宴会、物质遗迹、建筑空间和经文阅读”，都加深了这座城市对斯蒂芬“作为当地赞助人”的要求 (16)。他继续说道，是耶路撒冷的两位当地主教约翰二世和尤维纳尔——西里尔的主教继任者——在“将曾经的边缘人物移动到城市仪式实践和纪念活动的中心”方面最具影响力 (11)。约翰主持发明了斯蒂芬的遗物，并将他的遗骨转移到圣锡安大教堂；Juvenal 加快了后来“该市最大的教会建筑群的奉献......一个宏伟的[结束第 261 页]和宏伟的大教堂就位于它的主门外。”到五世纪中叶，斯蒂芬“在耶路撒冷日历上有三天，而当时玛丽只吹嘘两天，只有几十个圣徒声称有一天”（59 ).

斯蒂芬，“烈士的长子”，坐在礼拜年的首位——门德斯解释说，圣诞节后的第二天——他主持了“随后的整个烈士合唱团”(25)。但圣诞节来得晚，耶路撒冷才在六世纪被强行强加于这座城市。而不是 12 月 25 日，“耶路撒冷将主显节 [1 月 6 日] 解释为其礼拜年的起点”（53）。意识到 12 月 26 日的重要性，耶路撒冷确实为司提反采用了这个节日，但在 1 月 7 日也为他制定了另一个节日，即“主显节八度的第二天”，这是出于“效仿那些城市的做法的愿望”这使斯蒂芬在烈士盛宴的年度周期中处于首位”（101）。与此同时，第三复活节后为斯蒂芬增加了盛宴，进一步加强了烈士在当地的声望，同时向“在那些特殊季节已经涌入这座城市的大量游客”宣告耶路撒冷与斯蒂芬的联系（128）。

当然，正如门德斯在他的书中解释的那样，烈士崇拜需要的不仅仅是日历上的日子才能茁壮成长。Revelatio Sancti Stephani是一篇将斯蒂芬遗物确定为“基督教耶路撒冷是预定的安息之地”的文本，将这座城市描述为“他们权力的独特渠道”并叙述......