Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoyJuice · 07-28-2004, 05:45 AM

In re-reading Acts in an examination in my belief that Paul is being disingenuous about actually meeting Peter and the apostles, I ran across this gem in defense of Peter after he was seized:

Acts 5:34
But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. 35 And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36 "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.�?

What the writer of Luke has Gamaliel saying is, that a while back ago “Theudas�? rose up against the Romans. When he is saying this is right after the arrival of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, and before the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts 6, which takes place in roughly 33-36 C.E., as indicated here:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saints04.htm

http://www.bartleby.com/65/st/StphnSt.html

The problem is this is what Josephus says about Theudas in Jewish Antiquities 20:

“1. NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas,�?

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm

Fadus was procurator of Judea in 44-48 C.E., which means that Luke has cited an event in claims of Gamaliel defending Peter that has not occurred yet? Again here on this timetable:

44 C.E. Uprising of Theudas, Theudas beheaded by Fadus.

http://www.historian.net/ntchrono.htm

Seeing that apologetics has been around since day one, has anyone addressed this issue, or is it even an issue?

~take care

Steven Carr · 07-28-2004, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alkech

Fadus was procurator of Judea in 44-48 C.E., which means that Luke has cited an event in claims of Gamaliel defending Peter that has not occurred yet? Again here on this timetable:

44 C.E. Uprising of Theudas, Theudas beheaded by Fadus.

Seeing that apologetics has been around since day one, has anyone addressed this issue, or is it even an issue?

Easy. There were two Theudas, 2 uprisings, 2 beheadings, and only one is recorded by secular history.

To say that , because we only have a record of one Thuedas and one uprising, that there was only one , is simply an argument from silence.

http://arago4.tn.utwente.nl/stonedea...helangelo.html

'Pope: Look! There were just twelve disciples and our Lord at the last supper. The Bible clearly says so.'

This is the sort of argument from silence that sceptics often make. Just because only 12 disciples are mentioned at the Last Supper, does not mean that Michaelangelo was wrong to have painted 28 disciples.

Toto · 07-28-2004, 11:10 AM

This particular historical error in Acts has been traced to the author of Acts (known as "Luke" for convenience sake) misreading Josephus, his source for the history of the time.

Luke and Josephus lists parallels between Luke's work and Josephus that tend to show borrowing:

Quote:

The same three rebel leaders: Judas the Galilean--even specifically connected with the census (Acts 5:37; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8); Theudas (Acts 5:36; JA 20.97); and "The Egyptian" (Acts 21:38; JW 2.261-3, JA 20.171).

It seems quite a remarkable coincidence that Luke should even mention these men at all (no other Christian author does), and that he names only three rebel leaders, and that all three are the very same men named by Josephus--even though Josephus says there were numerous such men (JW 2.259-264; JA 20.160-9, 20.188) and he only singled out these three especially for particular reasons of his own. In fact, to use only the rather generic nick-name "The Egyptian," instead of, or without, an actual name of any kind (there were millions of Egyptians, and certainly thousands in Judaea at any given time), though explicable as an affectation of one author, seems a little strange when two authors repeat the same idiom.

It also makes sense for Luke to draw these three men from Josephus: since Josephus was writing for a Roman audience, if the Romans knew any Jewish rebels, it would be these three men. Just as Josephus named them as examples of what good Jews are not, Luke names them specifically as examples of what the Christians are not--and as the latter two were specifically painted by Josephus as religious figures, messianic prophets, similar to Jesus, it would have behooved Luke to disassociate Jesus with these men, recently popularized to Romans by Josephus as villains. Similarly with Judas, who was a military rebel, very much the opposite of Jesus, the peaceful religious reformer. Notice, for example, how Luke greatly downplays Jesus' use of violence in clearing the temple, and emphasizes in its place his role as teacher: compare Luke 19:45-8 with Mark 11:15-8, Matthew 21:12-6, and John 2:13-6.

Finally, Luke makes errors in his use of these men that has a curious basis in the text of Josephus. When Luke brings up Theudas and Judas in the same speech, he reverses the correct order, having Theudas appear first, even though that does not fit what Josphus reports--indeed, Josephus places Theudas as much as fifteen years after the dramatic time in which Luke even has him mentioned. That Luke should be forced to use a rebel leader before his time is best explained by the fact that he needed someone to mention, and Josephus, his likely source, only details three distinct movements (though he goes into the rebel relatives of Judas, they are all associated with Judas). And when Josephus mentions Theudas, he immediately follows with a description of the fate of the sons of Judas (JA 20.97-102) and uses the occasion to recap the actions of Judas himself (associating him with the census, as Acts does). Thus, that Luke should repeat this very same incorrect sequence, which makes sense in Josephus but not in Acts, is a signature of borrowing. Further evidence is afforded here by similar vocabulary: both use the words aphistêmi "incited" and laos "the people."

offa · 07-28-2004, 05:52 PM

ISBN 0-06-067782-1, p.253

Wed Dec 12, 36AD 29/IX pentecontad at 3 p.m.

The Hebrews call a council at the pentecontad, attempting to
retain power. They produce proof that John Mark is not in the north
vestry but in the lower sanctuary (A 5:21-26). John Mark speaks,
defying Caiaphas, and anticipating the election of Jonathan Annas as
high priest (v.29). Jesus has just returned to the celibate life as
Mary is 3 mths pregnant (v.30). Gamaliel of the Hebrews recounts
the history of the uprising, and warns against the anti-Agrippa
party. John Mark is punished (A 5:27-40).

The event occurred in 36 AD. Theudas was executed later. What is written in Acts is true, however, the author (Luke) is using deceptive wording. He is writing after Fadus executes Theudas about an event that happened prior.

offa

Garnet · 07-29-2004, 10:19 AM

offa...how was the date you mentioned in your post determined?

JoyJuice · 08-02-2004, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by offa

ISBN 0-06-067782-1, p.253

Wed Dec 12, 36AD 29/IX pentecontad at 3 p.m.

The Hebrews call a council at the pentecontad, attempting to
retain power. They produce proof that John Mark is not in the north
vestry but in the lower sanctuary (A 5:21-26). John Mark speaks,
defying Caiaphas, and anticipating the election of Jonathan Annas as
high priest (v.29). Jesus has just returned to the celibate life as
Mary is 3 mths pregnant (v.30). Gamaliel of the Hebrews recounts
the history of the uprising, and warns against the anti-Agrippa
party. John Mark is punished (A 5:27-40).

The event occurred in 36 AD. Theudas was executed later. What is written in Acts is true, however, the author (Luke) is using deceptive wording. He is writing after Fadus executes Theudas about an event that happened prior.

offa

This is the complete account from Josephus:

"1. NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, (9) persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government."

He's saying that Fadus sent the troops placing the event in his reign of 44-48 C.E.?

P.S. the ISBN you provided doesn't seem to work, at least not for me?

~take care

07-28-2004, 05:45 AM	#1
JoyJuice Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Beautiful Downtown Tacoma Posts: 370	Luke, Gamaliel, Josephus, and Stephen In re-reading Acts in an examination in my belief that Paul is being disingenuous about actually meeting Peter and the apostles, I ran across this gem in defense of Peter after he was seized: Acts 5:34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. 35 And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36 "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.�? What the writer of Luke has Gamaliel saying is, that a while back ago “Theudas�? rose up against the Romans. When he is saying this is right after the arrival of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, and before the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts 6, which takes place in roughly 33-36 C.E., as indicated here: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saints04.htm http://www.bartleby.com/65/st/StphnSt.html The problem is this is what Josephus says about Theudas in Jewish Antiquities 20: “1. NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas,�? http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm Fadus was procurator of Judea in 44-48 C.E., which means that Luke has cited an event in claims of Gamaliel defending Peter that has not occurred yet? Again here on this timetable: 44 C.E. Uprising of Theudas, Theudas beheaded by Fadus. http://www.historian.net/ntchrono.htm Seeing that apologetics has been around since day one, has anyone addressed this issue, or is it even an issue? ~take care

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-28-2004, 05:52 PM	#4
offa Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Monroeville, Ohio, USA Posts: 440	ISBN 0-06-067782-1, p.253 Wed Dec 12, 36AD 29/IX pentecontad at 3 p.m. The Hebrews call a council at the pentecontad, attempting to retain power. They produce proof that John Mark is not in the north vestry but in the lower sanctuary (A 5:21-26). John Mark speaks, defying Caiaphas, and anticipating the election of Jonathan Annas as high priest (v.29). Jesus has just returned to the celibate life as Mary is 3 mths pregnant (v.30). Gamaliel of the Hebrews recounts the history of the uprising, and warns against the anti-Agrippa party. John Mark is punished (A 5:27-40). The event occurred in 36 AD. Theudas was executed later. What is written in Acts is true, however, the author (Luke) is using deceptive wording. He is writing after Fadus executes Theudas about an event that happened prior. offa

07-29-2004, 10:19 AM	#5
Garnet Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Lansing, MI Posts: 6,610	offa...how was the date you mentioned in your post determined?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.