Is Gamaliel's Mention of Theudas and Judas the Galliean an Error?
I recently came accross the Wikipedia article on the “Historical Reliability of the Acts of the Apostles,” which was an interesting read with an obvious slant in favor of the presupposition Luke’s work is unhistorical.
Acts 5:36-37 is one of the article’s alleged problematic passages, which tells of a Pharisee named Gamaliel saying, “For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered” (NASB).
The Wikipedia article, for example, indicates, “[Gamaliel] refers to two movements other than the Way. One lead by Theudas (v 36) and after him led by Judas the Galilean. Josephus placed Judas about 6 AD. He places Theudas under the procurator Fadus 44-46 AD. Two problems emerge. First, the order of Judas and Theudas is reversed in Acts 5. Second, Theudas’s movement comes after the time when Gamaliel is speaking.”1 (To the credit of Wikipedia, the article is noted to lack citations for verification.)
The Wikipedia article appears to be appealing to Josephus, who mentions the execution of a self-proclaimed messiah named Theudas during the governance of Fadus (Antiquities 20.5.1 §§ 97-98). It reasons that Josephus’ is the historically reliable account of Theudas, and that Luke, the author of Acts, is referring to the same Theudas, and then concludes Acts contains an anachronism, which make’s this book of the Bible historically unreliable.
There are other factors to take into consideration before abandoning the reliability of the Bible. It is likely that Gamaliel is mentioning another Theudas, one active around the time of Herod the Great’s death around 4 BC. William Larkin notes “Josephus reports many uprisings at Herod’s death (Jewish Antiquities 17:269). Theudas, a contracted form of names such as Theodorus, Theodotus and Theodosius, was a common name in antiquity, as inscription and papyri show.”2 The possibility of another rebel named Theudus also accounts for the reversal: “Theudas rose up…Judas of Galilee rose up….”
It can be pointed out that “the Zealots sustained Judas' vision and sparked the AD 66 way”3 and that “Gamaliel’s assessment of Judas' influences may have indeed been wrong.”4 This does not make the Bible unhistorical, for Luke faithfully records what was spoken. Indeed, Gamaliel spoke those words, even if his assessment of the situation was incorrect.
1. Wikipedia, “Historical Reliability of Acts,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles
2. William J. Larkin Jr, Acts: The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995) 97n.
3. Ibid., 96n.
4. Ibid., 97n.
Acts 5:36-37 is one of the article’s alleged problematic passages, which tells of a Pharisee named Gamaliel saying, “For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered” (NASB).
The Wikipedia article, for example, indicates, “[Gamaliel] refers to two movements other than the Way. One lead by Theudas (v 36) and after him led by Judas the Galilean. Josephus placed Judas about 6 AD. He places Theudas under the procurator Fadus 44-46 AD. Two problems emerge. First, the order of Judas and Theudas is reversed in Acts 5. Second, Theudas’s movement comes after the time when Gamaliel is speaking.”1 (To the credit of Wikipedia, the article is noted to lack citations for verification.)
The Wikipedia article appears to be appealing to Josephus, who mentions the execution of a self-proclaimed messiah named Theudas during the governance of Fadus (Antiquities 20.5.1 §§ 97-98). It reasons that Josephus’ is the historically reliable account of Theudas, and that Luke, the author of Acts, is referring to the same Theudas, and then concludes Acts contains an anachronism, which make’s this book of the Bible historically unreliable.
There are other factors to take into consideration before abandoning the reliability of the Bible. It is likely that Gamaliel is mentioning another Theudas, one active around the time of Herod the Great’s death around 4 BC. William Larkin notes “Josephus reports many uprisings at Herod’s death (Jewish Antiquities 17:269). Theudas, a contracted form of names such as Theodorus, Theodotus and Theodosius, was a common name in antiquity, as inscription and papyri show.”2 The possibility of another rebel named Theudus also accounts for the reversal: “Theudas rose up…Judas of Galilee rose up….”
It can be pointed out that “the Zealots sustained Judas' vision and sparked the AD 66 way”3 and that “Gamaliel’s assessment of Judas' influences may have indeed been wrong.”4 This does not make the Bible unhistorical, for Luke faithfully records what was spoken. Indeed, Gamaliel spoke those words, even if his assessment of the situation was incorrect.
1. Wikipedia, “Historical Reliability of Acts,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles
2. William J. Larkin Jr, Acts: The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995) 97n.
3. Ibid., 96n.
4. Ibid., 97n.
Comments
Post a Comment