In Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles: Introduction, Translation and Notes (AB 31; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1965) there is an appendix, “Stephen’s Samaritan Background” (pp. 285-300) based on the work of Dr. Abram Spiro. He offers some evidence, based on Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 and how his recollection of Old Testament events conflicts with the Masoretic text, and based on this, that Stephen was a Samaritan, including:
(a) In the Masoretic text (Gen xi 32) Terah lived 205 years, surviving by sixty years Abraham’s departure from Harran (cf. Gen xi 26, xii 4). But Stephen’s report that Abraham left at his father’s death (vii 4) is in harmony with the Samaritan text in which Terah lived for only 145 years.
(b) God promised Abraham the land but “gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot of ground” (vii 5); this is based on Deut ii 5b. But in the Masoretic text, the noun “inheritance” is found only in ii 5c; in the Samaritan text, however, it also appears in ii 5b.
(c) God told Moses, “I am the God of your fathers” (vii 32); this is based on Exod iii 6. The Masoretic text reads “father”; the Samaritan reading is, however, in the plural.
(d) Stephen’s history from Abraham through Moses depends on Genesis and Exodus. Hence vii 37, mentioning a future prophet like Moses, is not based on Deut xviii 15—which would be an intrusion—but on the Samaritan Book of Exodus which contains a pericope (after xx 17) composed of passages from Deuteronomy and called by the Samaritans the tenth commandment.
. . .
(j) In Exod xxxii 32-34, Moses pleaded with the Lord to forgive Israel the sin of the golden calf or to bot out his name from the Lord’s book. The Lord replied that he would blot out only the sinners, and bade Moses lead the people to its destination, “nevertheless in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them.” Stephen asserts (vii 41-43) that Amos identifies the saints and the sinners (Amos v 27) by explaining that the divine visitation means the Babylonian exile, for since Judah was exiled into Babylon it follows that the sins of her ancestors had been visited upon her. It also follows that the Jews, descendants of the Judeans, are the progeny of sinners who had already rebelled against Moses when still in Egypt (vii 25-29, 35-40). Stephen or his Samarian precursors accomplished this revision of history by changing “Damascus” into “Babylon” in the text of Amos, thus making the prophet speak of the exile of Judah.
(k) In contrast to the sinners, the saints had a tabernacle of witness made on a heavenly pattern and brought it into Canaan under the leadership of Joshua (vii 44-45)—the Samaritan hero next in importance to Moses. Samaritan tradition maintained that Joshua established the cult of Gerizim, basing this assertion on Joshua xxiv by altering the “sanctuary” (vii 26) to a tabernacle—the standard Samaritan proper (vii 1, 25) to nearby Gerizim. Hence Joshua and the saints fulfilled Stephen’s version of God’s proclamation to Abraham (vii 7)
(l) “So it was until the days of David, who found favor in the sight of God and sought leave to find a habitation for the house of Jacob” (vii 45-46). This depends on Ps cxxxii 4, where David swears not to rest “until I find a place [māqȏm] for the Lord, a dwelling place for the Mighty One of Jacob.” David’s seeking a “place” for the Samaritans regarded as heresy, for the Lord himself had founded it (vii 7), so Stephen followed Samaritan tradition by only using the second half of the verse and changing it: instead of “the Mighty One (i.e. God) of Jacob,” he has “the house of Jacob.” Thus David did not seek to establish a “tabernacle” (skēnē; cf. vii 43-44) for God, but a “dwelling place,” skēnōma, for Israel. That is, David sought and found Jerusalem as the secular capital. Shechem remained the sacred one. The Samaritans related that David was anointed at the foot of Gerizim and sent his offerings to the “place.” His advisers had importuned him to build a temple in Jerusalem. But the Samaritan high priest dissuaded him.
(m) Solomon’s temple was not only in the wrong “place” but was of human construction (vii 48-50). Because of its heavenly pattern (vii 44) the Gerizim tabernacle was not considered so built. The Old Testament makes clear, however, that heaven was involved in the building of Solomon’s temple (II Sam xxiv 18; I Kings xviii 24, 38; I Chron xxi 18-26, xxviii 19; II Chron iii 1, vii 1; Ps lxxviii 68-69). But the sanctity of a temple is a relative matter, depending on whose temple it is and who the witnesses are. According to the Samaritans, the tabernacle of Gerizim was not made by human hands because the witnesses to its heavenly pattern were Samaritans, as they infer from the Samaritan Pentateuch, which alone they consider canonical. Solomon’s temple was a human construction because it was a Jewish temple and because the witnesses to its heavenly origin were Jewish, that is, the testimony is found in texts which only the Jews consider canonical. (pp. 285, 286-88)
Points J-M are of importance for Latter-day Saints as it sheds important light on Acts 7:48-50, often used by opponents of Latter-day Saint theology against our practice of temple worship and construction of physical temples (cf. Are LDS Temples Condemned by Acts 7:48; 17:24? for a previous discussion of this issue). Notwithstanding, Stephen, if he did have a Samaritan background, is basing his arguments based on (errant, as they contradict the Old Testament) assumptions about Gerizim being God’s chosen, sacred spot, and not Jerusalem, for the Temple.
Some may object as Stephen’s words are in Scripture, ipso facto they are binding and inspired. However, this would not be a good argument. Luke’s recording of Stephen’s speech is inspired, but that does not mean, ipso facto, that all of Stephen’s words are inspired and free from error, his Samaritan prejudices, errant presuppositions, etc. A parallel case is that of the record of Rabshakeh's (and Sennacherib's) words in 2 Kgs 18:28-36 are inspired but does not mean that they are correct in their content.
For those who wish to delve more into the differences between the MT and Samaritan version of the Torah, see:
