Another historical difficulty in the New Testament appears in Gamaliel’s speech in Acts 5:34–39. In this passage, Gamaliel, a respected Pharisee and teacher of the Law, advises the Jewish council to be cautious about persecuting the apostles. To support his argument, he refers to two earlier movements led by Theudas and Judas the Galilean. However, the order in which these figures appear raises questions when compared with the account of the Jewish historian Josephus.
In Acts, Gamaliel reminds the council that several leaders had previously attracted followers but eventually failed. He first mentions Theudas, who claimed to be somebody important and gathered approximately four hundred followers. After Theudas was killed, his followers dispersed, and his movement came to nothing. Gamaliel then refers to Judas the Galilean, who arose during the time of the census and attracted people to follow him. He, too, perished, and his followers were scattered.
Gamaliel uses these examples to make a broader point: if the apostles’ movement is merely a human undertaking, it will fail on its own. But if it comes from God, the council will not be able to stop it and may even find itself fighting against God. His speech is presented as a warning against taking action without carefully considering the consequences.
The historical problem emerges when this account is compared with the writings of Josephus, particularly Jewish Antiquities. Josephus associates Judas the Galilean with the revolt against the census around 6 CE, during the governorship of Quirinius. He describes Theudas as a later figure whose movement occurred during the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus, generally dated to around 44–46 CE.
This creates an apparent chronological difficulty. In Acts, Theudas is mentioned before Judas the Galilean, while Josephus places the revolt associated with Judas decades before the movement led by Theudas. If both passages refer to the same individuals, the order in Acts appears inconsistent with the chronology provided by Josephus.
Some explanations have been proposed. One possibility is that the Theudas mentioned in Acts was a different person from the one described by Josephus. The name may not have referred exclusively to one individual, although the available evidence does not establish that this is the correct explanation. Another possibility is that the author of Acts made a chronological error or used a tradition that did not preserve the historical sequence accurately.
The issue cannot be settled simply by assuming that the two writers must be describing different people. Nor can we establish with certainty why their accounts differ. The identification of the two Theudases remains debated.
This example illustrates the challenge of comparing biblical narratives with other ancient historical sources. Acts presents Gamaliel’s speech as an argument for restraint, while Josephus provides a chronology that raises questions about one of its historical examples. Whether the difference reflects two individuals with the same name or a chronological problem in Acts remains an important subject of historical discussion.
Leave a Reply