[371] Stephen's so-called "martyrdom," whose feast falls on December 26th, the day after the birth of Christ, owes its existence to astrology, and rests on the constellation of Corona (Gr., Stephanos), which becomes visible at this time on the eastern horizon (Dupuis, op. cit., 267). Hence the well-known phrase "to inherit the martyr's crown." Even the theologian Baur has found it strange that the Jewish Sanhedrin, which could not carry into effect any death sentence without the assent of the Roman governor, should completely set aside this formality in the case of Stephen; and he has clearly shown how the whole account of Stephen's martyrdom is paralleled with Christ's death (Baur, "Paulus," 25 sqq.). [372] Smith, op. cit., 23-31. [373] Frazer, "Golden Bough," iii. 197. [374] Smith, op. cit., 30 sq. [375] As to the small value of Papias' statement, cf. Gfrörer, "Die heilige Sage," 1838, i. 3-23; also Lützelberger, "Die kirchl. Tradition über den Apostel Johannes," 76-93. The whole story, according to which Mark received the essential content of the Gospel named after him from Peter, is based on 1 Peter v. 13, and merely serves the purpose of increasing the historical value of the Gospel of Mark. "As the first Gospel was believed to be the work of the Apostle Matthew, and the second (Luke) the work of an assistant of Paul, it was very easy to ascribe to the third (Mark) at least a similar origin as the second, i.e., to trace it back in an analogous way to Peter; as it would have seemed natural for the chief of the apostles, longest dead, to have had his own Gospel, one dedicated to him, as well as Paul. The passage 1 Peter v. 13, "My son Mark saluteth you," gave a suitable opportunity for bestowing a name on the book," (Gfrörer, op. cit., 15; cf. also Brandt, "Die evangelische Geschichte u. d. Ursprung des Christentums," 1893, 535 sq.) [376] Op. cit., 58. [377] xv. 39. [378] 60. [379] Id. [380] The proper explanation for this should lie in the fact that the Jesus-faith was set up as a sect-faith and not for "outsiders." [381] 63 sqq. [382] 68. [383] 70. [384] 3. [385] It strikes the reader, who stands apart from the controversy, as comical to find the matter characterised in the theological works on the subject as "undoubtedly historical," "distinct historical fact," "true account of history," and so forth; and to consider that what holds for one as "historically certain" is set aside by another as "quite certainly unhistorical." Where is the famous "method" of which the "critical" theologians are so proud in opposition to the "laity," who allow themselves to form judgments as to the historical worth or worthlessness of the Gospels? [386] Wrede, op. cit., 91. [387] 104. [388] 129. [389] 131. [390] 148. [391] 148.