Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ChandraRama · 04-28-2006, 06:26 PM

Some time ago, Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.
[Luke, Acts of the apostles 5.36-37]

It came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain charlatan, whose name was Theudas, 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. 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. After falling upon them unexpectedly, they slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem.
[(Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98]

based on the Fadus.. this page
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah...aimants00.html
dates Theudas to 45CE

The same page dates Judas the Galiean to 6CE

But Acts says Theudas appeared and then Judas appeared..

Am I missing something here?

Toto · 04-28-2006, 06:41 PM

This error on the part of the author has been used as evidence that the author was using Josephus as a source. See Luke and Jospephus.

Quote:

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."

ChandraRama · 04-28-2006, 08:11 PM

Thanks a lot Toto.

fta · 04-29-2006, 01:40 AM

The Catholic Encyclopedia is full of straw-clutching alternative explanations, of course:

Quote:

The rationalists allege that there is an error in the discourse of Gamaliel (Acts 5:36). Gamaliel refers to the insurrection of Theodas as a thing that had happened before the days of the Apostles, whereas Josephus (Antiq., XX, v, 1) places the rebellion of Theodas under Fadus, fourteen years after the date of the speech of Gamaliel. Here, as elsewhere, the adversaries of Holy Scriptures presuppose every writer who disagrees with the Holy Scriptures to be right. Every one who has examined Josephus must be struck by his carelessness and inaccuracy. He wrote mainly from memory, and often contradicts himself. In the present instance some suppose that he has confused the insurrection of Theodas with that of a certain Mathias, of whom he speaks in Antiq., XVII, vi, 4. Theodas is a contraction of Theodoros, and is identical in signification with the Hebrew name Mathias, both names signifying, "Gift of God". This is the opinion of Corluy in Vigouroux, "Dictionnaire de la Bible". Against Corluy's opinion it may rightly be objected that Gamaliel clearly intimates that the author of the insurrection of which he speaks was not actuated by holy motives. He speaks of him as a seditious man, who misled his followers, "giving himself out to be somebody". But Josephus describes Mathias as a most eloquent interpreter of the Jewish law, a man beloved by the people, whose lectures those who were studious of virtue frequented. Moreover, he incited the young men to pull down the golden eagle which the impious Herod had erected in the Temple of God. Certainly such an act was pleasing to God, not the act of an impostor. The argument of Gamaliel is based on the fact that Theodas claimed to be something which he was not. The character of Theodas as given by Josephus, XX, v, 1, accords with the implied character of the Theodas of Acts. Were it not for the discrepancy of dates, the two testimonies would be in perfect accord. It seems far more probable, therefore, that both writers speak of the same man, and that Josephus has erroneously placed his epoch about thirty years too late. Of course it is possible that there may have been two Theodases of similar character: one of the days of Herod the Great, whom Josephus does not name, but who is mentioned by Gamaliel; and one in the days of Cuspius Fadus the procurator of Judea, whose insurrection Josephus records. There must have been many of such character in the days of Herod the Great, for Josephus, speaking of that epoch, declares that "at this time there were ten thousand other disorders in Judæa which were like tumults" (Antiq., XVII, x, 4).

Richbee · 04-29-2006, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChandraRama

Some time ago, Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.
[Luke, Acts of the apostles 5.36-37]

It came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain charlatan, whose name was Theudas, 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. 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. After falling upon them unexpectedly, they slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem.
[(Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98]

based on the Fadus.. this page
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah...aimants00.html
dates Theudas to 45CE

The same page dates Judas the Galiean to 6CE

But Acts says Theudas appeared and then Judas appeared..

Am I missing something here?

Flavius Josephus may have gotten this wrong, but than again, which Judas was he referring to? Or, Theudas?

Is the order mentioned in reverse chronology?

Let us take these names at face value, and consider:

Quote:

The fact that the historian Josephus records the uprising led by a Theudas as occurring about fifteen years following the date of Gamaliel's speech in this passage has been cited by some scholars as an anachronism; but the dogmatic prejudice of critics on this point is based upon the very weakest of arguments, the most notable of which is that, in the case of conflicting dates, Josephus is more trustworthy than Luke.

It is quite the opposite; [B]it is not Luke but Josephus who is wrong in this instance, as in so many others. As Lewis pointed out, there is also the possibility that different incidents were referred to in Acts and in Josephus, there having been many uprisings during the period of which Gamaliel spoke,
i "providing the possibility that another Theudas may have led one of them." F41

- snip -

The point of Gamaliel's appeal to the example of Theudas was simply that God did not bless his efforts and that all came to naught, with the application that without God's blessing, the work of the apostles would also fail. He then gave another example of the same thing.

Verse 37

And after this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the enrollment, and drew away some of the people after him: he also perished; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad.

Judas ... was said to have been "of Galilee," because that was the seat of his insurrection against Rome; he was also called the Gaulonite, derived from Gamala, his native city in Gaulonitis.

The days of the enrollment ... Gamaliel mentioned this, not, because of the enrollment that led to the birth in Bethlehem, but because Judas "was the leader of the Jewish uprising which opposed the census ordered by Augustus, after the deposition of Archelaus." F44 The enrollment here, as well as the one that led to Joseph and Mary's trip to Bethlehem, was also carried out by Quirinius.

The point, exactly like that in the narration about Theudas, was that God did not bless the insurrection; and, therefore, it failed.

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bc...ac&chapter=005

Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament

ChandraRama · 04-29-2006, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

The point, exactly like that in the narration about Theudas, was that God did not bless the insurrection; and, therefore, it failed.

Is it only me or something is strange in this logic? So, any insurrection will succeed only if blessed by God? So all the insurrections that succeeded are blessed by God? Rise of Islam and the successful wars that Mohammedens conducted are all blessed by God? :huh:

04-28-2006, 06:26 PM	#1
ChandraRama Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: US Posts: 107	Regarding dating Theudas... Some time ago, Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. [Luke, Acts of the apostles 5.36-37] It came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain charlatan, whose name was Theudas, 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. 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. After falling upon them unexpectedly, they slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. [(Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98] based on the Fadus.. this page http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah...aimants00.html dates Theudas to 45CE The same page dates Judas the Galiean to 6CE But Acts says Theudas appeared and then Judas appeared.. Am I missing something here?

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

04-28-2006, 08:11 PM	#3
ChandraRama Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: US Posts: 107	Thanks a lot Toto.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.