| « Prev | The Impostor Theudas and his Followers. | Next » |
Chapter XI.—The Impostor Theudas and his Followers.
1. Luke, in the Acts, introduces Gamaliel as saying, at the consultation which was held concerning the apostles, that at the time referred to,347347 κατὰ τὸν δηλούμενον χρόνον, i.e. about the time of Agrippa’s death. But Luke writes πρὸ γὰρ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν, “Before these days.” “rose up Theudas boasting himself to be somebody; who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered.”348348 Acts v. 36. Let us therefore add the account of Josephus concerning this man. He records in the work mentioned just above, the following circumstances:349349 Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 1.
2. “While Fadus was
procurator of Judea350350 About
44 a.d. See above, chap. 8, note 2. a certain impostor
called Theudas351351 There
is a chronological difficulty in connection with this Theudas which has
caused much dispute. The Theudas mentioned by Josephus arose in the
time of Claudius; but the Theudas referred to by Gamaliel in the Acts
must have lived many years before that. Various solutions of greater or
less plausibility have been offered, almost any one of which is
possible, and abundantly sufficient to account for the alleged
discrepancy, though none can be proved to be true. Compare
Wieseler’s Chron. des ap. Zeitalters, p. 138, note 1;
Ewald’s Gesch. des Jüdischen Volkes, Bd. VI. p. 532;
Jost’s Gesch. der Israeliten, Bd. II. Anhang, p. 86; and
the various commentaries on the Acts in loco.
A question of more
importance for us, in the present instance, is as to Eusebius’
conduct in the case. He identifies the Theudas of Luke with the Theudas
of Josephus,—an identification which is impossible, if both
accounts are accepted as trustworthy. Eusebius has consequently been
accused of an intentional perversion of facts for the sake of promoting
the credibility of Luke’s accounts. But a protest must again be
entered against such grave imputations upon the honesty of Eusebius. A
man with a very small allowance of common sense would certainly not
have been so foolish as consciously to involve himself in such a
glaring anachronism—an anachronism which every reader had the
means of exposing—for the sake of making a point in confirmation
of the narrative of Luke. Had he been conscious of the discrepancy, he
would certainly have endeavored to reconcile the two accounts, and it
would not have required a great amount of ingenuity or research to
discover in the pages of Josephus himself a sufficiently plausible
reconciliation. The only reasonable explanation of Eusebius’
anachronism is his carelessness, which caused him to fall into many
blunders as bad as the present, especially in questions of chronology.
He read, in the Acts, of Theudas; he read, in Josephus, of a similar
character of the same name; he identified the two hastily, and without
a thought of any chronological difficulty in the case. He quotes the
passage from the Acts very freely, and possibly without recollecting
that it occurs several chapters before the account of the famine and of
the other events which happened in the time of Claudius. persuaded 113a very great multitude to take
their possessions and follow him to the river Jordan. For he said that
he was a prophet, and that the river should be divided at his command,
and afford them an easy passage.
3. And with these words he deceived many. But Fadus did not permit them to enjoy their folly, but sent a troop of horsemen against them, who fell upon them unexpectedly and slew many of them and took many others alive, while they took Theudas himself captive, and cut off his head and carried it to Jerusalem.” Besides this he also makes mention of the famine, which took place in the reign of Claudius, in the following words.
| « Prev | The Impostor Theudas and his Followers. | Next » |
