THEUDAS AND JUDAS THE GALILEAN
The handling of Theudas and Judas the Galilean by the author of Acts is perhaps the most confusing, most illogical and most dishonest literature one will ever come across. Its purpose was to mislead, so one must admire the desired effects over the past two thousand years. It has worked brilliantly: the histories of both Theudas and Judas the Galilean have been suppressed to the point that these two Jewish revolutionaries are insignificant footnotes, never even considered in the Jesus story.
But were they really only bit players in a much larger drama, or did Luke distort their true contributions to Jewish history by his own unflattering account? After all, their very mention means that some people still remembered them. Is it possible that both Theudas and Judas the Galilean were much more important than we can even imagine? Luke's take on the two is reproduced below.
Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said, "yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teachings and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."
Peter and the other apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead -- whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree."...
When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: "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. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone [Peter and the apostles]! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." His speech persuaded them. (Acts 5:27-40) (Emphasis mine)
In this story, Peter and the apostles were arrested for preaching in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. It is quite revealing that the author of Acts had Peter and his followers say, "We must obey God rather than men!" That was the philosophy of Judas the Galilean as expressed by Josephus. He wrote: "But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty; and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord." (Ant. 18.23) Note that the Fourth Philosophy, like Peter and the apostles, had only one ruler and that was God. The statement by Peter was very serious. He and his brethren were challenging the rule of Rome and their hirelings. Most scholars miss this point because they are convinced that the Jesus movement had no connections to the Fourth Philosophy. This proves the power of this Acts' passage.
The supposed author of this passage on Theudas and Judas the Galilean was Gamaliel, a renowned teacher of the law. He came to Peter's and the other apostles' rescue after they had been detained by the religious authorities for preaching the message of Jesus of Nazareth. The apostles were brought to the Sanhedrin by the Sadducees and were being questioned by the High Priest. This part of the Sanhedrin wanted to put the apostles to death. Their opinion of the Jewish Christians had not changed since the crucifixion of Jesus. The same Sadducees and High Priest had arrested and condemned Jesus. (This trial of Jesus was at night and was not conducted in front of the whole Sanhedrin.) Luckily for the apostles, this arrest was brought to the Sanhedrin which consisted of Sadducees and Pharisees. Gamaliel, a leader of the Pharisees, convinced the whole Sanhedrin that the apostles should be freed. Unlike the trial of Jesus, the Sanhedrin was ruled by majority vote. Gamaliel had the full support of the Pharisees and thus saved the apostles.
This act by a Pharisee contradicts the traditional teachings concerning the Pharisees. In the Gospels, we are led to believe that the Pharisees hounded Jesus and were responsible for his capture and crucifixion. However, on the night of Jesus' arrest, Jesus was taken to Annas and Caiaphas and was then handed over (the same Greek word as applied to Judas Iscariot's supposed betrayal) to Pilate for crucifixion. The Pharisees had nothing to do with Jesus' arrest! That the Pharisees were not opposed to Jesus' movement can also be supported by Josephus. In Ant. 20.197-203, James, the brother of Jesus, was stoned to death by the illegal actions of the High Priest, Annas. (This was the son of the Annas responsible for Jesus' arrest and crucifixion.) In response to the police action against James, the Pharisees petitioned to have Annas removed as High Priest. Thus, the friendly relations between Jesus and the Pharisees existed over several generations. (The Gospels occasionally portrayed the Pharisees in a positive light, such as when they warned Jesus about Herod's plans to kill him. (Luke 13:31)) It is also illuminating that Judas the Galilean and his movement "agreed in all other things with the Pharisaic notions." (Ant. 18.23) Also, the Sadduc, Judas' co-teacher and second-in-command, was a Pharisee. (Ant. 18.4)
Gamaliel's reasoning for rescue was simple: these men would fail miserably if they were not from God, and the converse, nothing could be done to stop them if God were on their side. Obviously, there was nothing in the apostles' message which was deemed blasphemous. The claims for the Messiah and for resurrection were both acceptable to the Pharisees. This was not true for the Sadducees. Jesus' claim for kingship (Messiah) and his cleansing of the Temple were political attacks on the power structure, and they (Sadducees and High Priest) were the ones with the most to lose. The authorities agreed with Gamaliel only because the majority of the Sanhedrin sided with him. The apostles were set free after an obligatory flogging and a warning to stop preaching about Jesus. The use of Theudas and Judas the Galilean by Gamaliel was meant to show how unholy men failed who were not from God. The Pharisees were willing to take a wait and see attitude towards the Jesus movement.
According to the traditional timeline of the Gospels, this event took place shortly after the crucifixion, between 30-35 CE. If that were true, then how could Gamaliel have known about Theudas? In Ant. 20.97-99, Josephus wrote that Theudas persuaded many people to follow him to the river Jordan, where he promised to divide the river as Moses had parted the Red Sea. This failed spectacle occurred during the reign of Cuspius Fadus, procurator from 44-46 CE. Theudas' attempt to alter the elements fizzled, and he was captured and beheaded with the sword, an unfortunate ending for an apocalyptic leader. Theudas' attempt at the miraculous was the first of many who tried to coax God into action. He was no doubt a member of Judas the Galilean's Fourth Philosophy, but his methods were different than the wait and see disciples. Like Jesus on the Mount of Olives, Theudas wanted God to intervene into history. If only God would part the Jordan as he had done in the time of Moses and Joshua, then people would know and believe that the Kingdom of God was returning to earth. In short, this may have been a desperate plea for Jesus to return in power and glory.
How different was Theudas' attempt to that of Jesus on the Mount of Olives? Jesus expected God to fulfill the oracle of Zechariah by defeating the enemies of Israel. Theudas was simply following the examples of Moses and Joshua. Moses parted the Red Sea and Joshua led his followers into the promised land. Like other apocalyptical preachers of the time, these men trusted in the Scriptures. If God worked miracles in the past, then He could work miracles in the present. It never dawned upon them that the Old Testament Scriptures were exaggerated or flat out inventions. Like Jesus, these miracle workers were true believers. So we must not judge them strictly on our knowledge but on what they truly believed.
The first unraveling of Luke's cover-up concerns the dating: if Theudas were killed between 44-46 CE, then how could Gamaliel have known about this in 30-35 CE, ten to fifteen years prior? Talk about a prophet! In reality, Gamaliel could not have known about Theudas. But Luke knew about Theudas from the works of Josephus. Antiquities was written in 93 CE, so Luke's history must have been written after this date. This confusion between the author's knowledge and a character's knowledge is revealing: Luke was a terrible historian but a very capable fiction writer.
After noting that Theudas' efforts "came to nothing," Luke introduced Judas the Galilean, a rebel leader who appeared in the days of the census. Gamaliel would have known about Judas the Galilean, who led a tax revolt against Rome in 6 CE. This Judas was the most influential rabbi of the first century, so it is inconceivable that Gamaliel would have considered him a onetime wonder with no existing following. In fact, the Jewish war was started by Judas' later followers, sixty years after the census. Is it possible for a respected religious leader to be so out of touch with current events? Gamaliel would not have been so blatantly ignorant of current religious and political affairs.
According to Luke's convoluted history, this Judas arrived on the scene a short time after Theudas. This error by the author of Acts is simply shoddy history work. Most Christians refuse to believe that the Bible contains errors so they hopelessly try to find a Theudas that lived and died prior to 6 CE. Josephus must have forgotten about this Theudas, they "reason." But Josephus did not write about any other Theudas other than the one in 45 CE; so the hypothesis that an unknown Theudas roamed the countryside before the census is extremely unlikely.
In Ant. 20.101-102, Josephus followed the story of Theudas with the grim tale of Judas the Galilean's sons, who were crucified during the governorship of Tiberius Alexander, between 46-48 CE. Could Luke have confused Judas the Galilean with his sons? It certainly appears so. This at least restores the order of the passage. But again, we have the same problem: Gamaliel (35 CE) was foretelling the future (45-48 CE) and ascribing it to the past.
The Slavonic Josephus may hold the truth to the whole situation.
But when those noble governors [Fadus and Alexander, 44-48 CE] saw the misleading of the people, they deliberated with the scribes to seize and put them [Jewish Christians] to death, for fear lest the little be not little if it have ended in the great. But they shrank back and were alarmed over the signs, saying: "In the plain course such wonders do not occur. But if they do not issue from the counsel of God, they will quickly be convicted." And they gave them [the Christians] authority to act as they would. But afterwards, becoming pestered by them, they had them sent away, some to the Emperor, but others to Antioch, others again to distant lands, - for the testing of the matter. But Claudius removed two governors, [and] sent Cumanus [48-52 CE] (1) (Emphasis mine)
This passage was inserted into the War after the death of Agrippa I (44 CE) and before the appointment of Agrippa II (49-93 CE) and the arrival of the new Roman governor, Cumanus. During the governorships of Fadus and Alexander, the Jewish Christians were causing problems for the ruling elites. There was talk of seizing the Christians and putting them to death. This no doubt happened as the sons of Judas the Galilean were captured and crucified as reported in Ant. 20.101-102. But after this period of persecution, the Pharisees used the same reasoning to spare the Christians as was reported in Acts 5:37-39. Essentially, if the wonders were not from God, then the Christians would be convicted. "And they gave them authority to act as they would," at least for a little while. The passage then suggests that the persecutions began anew after the arrival of Cumanus. In both Acts and the Slavonic Josephus, the Jewish Christians were given the benefit of the doubt for a short period of time. It seems quite obvious that Luke took his material from the same source as the Slavonic Josephus. But once again, the dating was between 44-48 CE. There is little doubt that the Gamaliel story was fictitious. The events did occur, but not in or before 35 CE.
Eusebius, the "Father of Ecclesiastical History", adds to the confusion with his own take on the passage. He compared Theudas with the Theudas of Josephus, the one who was put to death by the sword in 45 CE. Eusebius then stated: "Immediately after this he [Josephus] mentions the famine that took place in Claudius's time." This he then compared to the account in Acts 11:27-30, where Paul and Barnabas accompanied famine relief to Jerusalem. (2) Note that Eusebius did not deal with the time discrepancies. In his history, the death of Theudas and the famine happened in close proximity to each other. And this agreed with Josephus (Ant. 20.97-102). However, Eusebius never explained how the conversion of Paul (Acts 9), which supposedly occurred in the early 30's, could be sandwiched by two events in the mid 40's (Acts 5 and Acts 11). Possibly understanding his dilemma, Eusebius then skipped the part of the passage concerning Judas the Galilean. Bringing a 6 CE figure into the equation may have been too much even for the great apologist. But this can be explained by an earlier section in his history. When describing the birth of Jesus, Eusebius quoted Luke in Acts 5:37: "After him came the rising of Judas the Galilean at the time of the registration. He persuaded a number of people to revolt under his leadership; but he too perished, and all his followers were dispersed." (3) The reference to “him” was none other than Theudas, the person who Eusebius claimed to have died in 45 CE. In addition to these shenanigans, Eusebius created one other problem: he claimed that Jesus was born at the Census of Cyrenius in 6 CE, at the time of Judas the Galilean's tax revolt. This in no way can be reconciled with the birth of Jesus according to Matthew, who had Jesus born right before the death of Herod the Great, in 6-4 BCE. In an attempt to tie Acts to Josephus, Eusebius unwittingly uncovered some major errors in New Testament chronology. This was simply a repeat of the same error by Justin, who also regurgitated Luke's timeline in 150 CE. (4)
Many scholars have recognized the impossible situation of the dating and have come up with a mediocre solution. As noted above, they simply argue that there was another Theudas who lived a short time before Judas the Galilean, approximately 1-5 CE. They claim that the silence of Josephus on such a figure does not prove that a Theudas did not live at this time. Thus, the Scriptures have been saved from error.
This "scholarly" explanation requires a stretch of the imagination. But even if it were true, then the description of Judas the Galilean can be shown to be maliciously misleading. According to Acts chapter 5, Judas was killed, his followers were scattered, and his movement failed because it was not from God. Is that what really happened?
Josephus wrote this about Judas the Galilean at the time of the Census of Cyrenius:
...there was one Judas, ...[who] became zealous to draw them to a revolt, [who] said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty. [6 CE]... for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundation of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, ...because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction. [66-70 CE] (Ant. 18.4-10) (Emphasis mine)
This passage assures us that Judas the Galilean founded a new philosophy and this new teaching infected the nation for the next sixty years. (Josephus' use of infected was similar to Tacitus' description of Christianity as a "pernicious superstition" (5) and Pliny's description as "the contagion of this superstition." (6)) In fact, this philosophy led the Jewish nation to war with Rome, the greatest power on earth. So it is obvious that the death of Judas, mysteriously missing from Josephus, did not stop or even slow his movement. Eerily, like the movement of Jesus, it flourished to a great extent after his death.
So why did the author of Acts feel it necessary to lie to the reader? The confusion or poor history concerning Theudas can be innocently explained away, but the unfair characterization of Judas the Galilean cannot. Luke purposely belittled Judas with the intent of minimizing him in the eyes of second-century Christians. He also wanted to forever cut the ties between Judas and the mythical Jesus. Surely, Jesus could never be associated with such an apparent loser. This misleading history has been working well to the present day.
However, the statement that the movement was scattered after Judas' death may have some truth to it. If the Romans captured Judas, then it would have been a prudent move to scatter or to hide. Eventually, these individuals reorganized as the Fourth Philosophy coalesced and expanded. But how was this scattering of Judas' movement any different from Jesus' disciples’ reaction after the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus? After Jesus was arrested, "then everyone (all the disciples) deserted him and fled." (Mark 14:50 and Matt. 26:56) The non-canonical Gospel of Peter stated: "But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, wept and grieved; and each one returned to his home, grieving for what had happened." (vs. 59) The disciples of Jesus fled from the scene of his arrest, denied Jesus when questioned and hid in fear from the authorities. Jesus' followers acted exactly the same as Luke's portrayal of Judas' followers (Acts 5:37). It is interesting to note that Luke did not report that Jesus' followers had fled, unlike Mark and Matthew. Instead, Luke reserved his scattering of disciples to the movement of Judas the Galilean. This, like so many other events, ties Jesus to Judas.
Judas the Galilean may have been the historical Jesus. The mythical Jesus of the Gospels was framed from the theology of Paul, and the life of the Jewish revolutionary, Judas the Galilean. The great number of coincidences between Jesus and Judas shows how much of Judas' history was incorporated into Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, it was necessary to color the history of Judas with failure. With one stroke of the pen, Christians and scholars alike have forfeited reason in favor of misguided faith. Unfortunately, Judas the Galilean has been long forgotten.
1. Slavonic Josephus, After War 2.222.
2. Eusebius, The History of the Church, Tiberius to Nero, Book 2.11-12.
3. Ibid., Christ and His Contemporaries, Book 1.5.
4. Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, p. 5; Justin, Apology, I. xlvi. 1-4.
5. Ibid., pp. 1-2, Tacitus, The Annals, xv. 44.
6. Ibid., pp. 3-4, Pliny, Epp. X (ad Traj.), xcvi.
The handling of Theudas and Judas the Galilean by the author of Acts is perhaps the most confusing, most illogical and most dishonest literature one will ever come across. Its purpose was to mislead, so one must admire the desired effects over the past two thousand years. It has worked brilliantly: the histories of both Theudas and Judas the Galilean have been suppressed to the point that these two Jewish revolutionaries are insignificant footnotes, never even considered in the Jesus story.
But were they really only bit players in a much larger drama, or did Luke distort their true contributions to Jewish history by his own unflattering account? After all, their very mention means that some people still remembered them. Is it possible that both Theudas and Judas the Galilean were much more important than we can even imagine? Luke's take on the two is reproduced below.
Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said, "yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teachings and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."
Peter and the other apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead -- whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree."...
When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: "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. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone [Peter and the apostles]! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." His speech persuaded them. (Acts 5:27-40) (Emphasis mine)
In this story, Peter and the apostles were arrested for preaching in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. It is quite revealing that the author of Acts had Peter and his followers say, "We must obey God rather than men!" That was the philosophy of Judas the Galilean as expressed by Josephus. He wrote: "But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty; and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord." (Ant. 18.23) Note that the Fourth Philosophy, like Peter and the apostles, had only one ruler and that was God. The statement by Peter was very serious. He and his brethren were challenging the rule of Rome and their hirelings. Most scholars miss this point because they are convinced that the Jesus movement had no connections to the Fourth Philosophy. This proves the power of this Acts' passage.
The supposed author of this passage on Theudas and Judas the Galilean was Gamaliel, a renowned teacher of the law. He came to Peter's and the other apostles' rescue after they had been detained by the religious authorities for preaching the message of Jesus of Nazareth. The apostles were brought to the Sanhedrin by the Sadducees and were being questioned by the High Priest. This part of the Sanhedrin wanted to put the apostles to death. Their opinion of the Jewish Christians had not changed since the crucifixion of Jesus. The same Sadducees and High Priest had arrested and condemned Jesus. (This trial of Jesus was at night and was not conducted in front of the whole Sanhedrin.) Luckily for the apostles, this arrest was brought to the Sanhedrin which consisted of Sadducees and Pharisees. Gamaliel, a leader of the Pharisees, convinced the whole Sanhedrin that the apostles should be freed. Unlike the trial of Jesus, the Sanhedrin was ruled by majority vote. Gamaliel had the full support of the Pharisees and thus saved the apostles.
This act by a Pharisee contradicts the traditional teachings concerning the Pharisees. In the Gospels, we are led to believe that the Pharisees hounded Jesus and were responsible for his capture and crucifixion. However, on the night of Jesus' arrest, Jesus was taken to Annas and Caiaphas and was then handed over (the same Greek word as applied to Judas Iscariot's supposed betrayal) to Pilate for crucifixion. The Pharisees had nothing to do with Jesus' arrest! That the Pharisees were not opposed to Jesus' movement can also be supported by Josephus. In Ant. 20.197-203, James, the brother of Jesus, was stoned to death by the illegal actions of the High Priest, Annas. (This was the son of the Annas responsible for Jesus' arrest and crucifixion.) In response to the police action against James, the Pharisees petitioned to have Annas removed as High Priest. Thus, the friendly relations between Jesus and the Pharisees existed over several generations. (The Gospels occasionally portrayed the Pharisees in a positive light, such as when they warned Jesus about Herod's plans to kill him. (Luke 13:31)) It is also illuminating that Judas the Galilean and his movement "agreed in all other things with the Pharisaic notions." (Ant. 18.23) Also, the Sadduc, Judas' co-teacher and second-in-command, was a Pharisee. (Ant. 18.4)
Gamaliel's reasoning for rescue was simple: these men would fail miserably if they were not from God, and the converse, nothing could be done to stop them if God were on their side. Obviously, there was nothing in the apostles' message which was deemed blasphemous. The claims for the Messiah and for resurrection were both acceptable to the Pharisees. This was not true for the Sadducees. Jesus' claim for kingship (Messiah) and his cleansing of the Temple were political attacks on the power structure, and they (Sadducees and High Priest) were the ones with the most to lose. The authorities agreed with Gamaliel only because the majority of the Sanhedrin sided with him. The apostles were set free after an obligatory flogging and a warning to stop preaching about Jesus. The use of Theudas and Judas the Galilean by Gamaliel was meant to show how unholy men failed who were not from God. The Pharisees were willing to take a wait and see attitude towards the Jesus movement.
According to the traditional timeline of the Gospels, this event took place shortly after the crucifixion, between 30-35 CE. If that were true, then how could Gamaliel have known about Theudas? In Ant. 20.97-99, Josephus wrote that Theudas persuaded many people to follow him to the river Jordan, where he promised to divide the river as Moses had parted the Red Sea. This failed spectacle occurred during the reign of Cuspius Fadus, procurator from 44-46 CE. Theudas' attempt to alter the elements fizzled, and he was captured and beheaded with the sword, an unfortunate ending for an apocalyptic leader. Theudas' attempt at the miraculous was the first of many who tried to coax God into action. He was no doubt a member of Judas the Galilean's Fourth Philosophy, but his methods were different than the wait and see disciples. Like Jesus on the Mount of Olives, Theudas wanted God to intervene into history. If only God would part the Jordan as he had done in the time of Moses and Joshua, then people would know and believe that the Kingdom of God was returning to earth. In short, this may have been a desperate plea for Jesus to return in power and glory.
How different was Theudas' attempt to that of Jesus on the Mount of Olives? Jesus expected God to fulfill the oracle of Zechariah by defeating the enemies of Israel. Theudas was simply following the examples of Moses and Joshua. Moses parted the Red Sea and Joshua led his followers into the promised land. Like other apocalyptical preachers of the time, these men trusted in the Scriptures. If God worked miracles in the past, then He could work miracles in the present. It never dawned upon them that the Old Testament Scriptures were exaggerated or flat out inventions. Like Jesus, these miracle workers were true believers. So we must not judge them strictly on our knowledge but on what they truly believed.
The first unraveling of Luke's cover-up concerns the dating: if Theudas were killed between 44-46 CE, then how could Gamaliel have known about this in 30-35 CE, ten to fifteen years prior? Talk about a prophet! In reality, Gamaliel could not have known about Theudas. But Luke knew about Theudas from the works of Josephus. Antiquities was written in 93 CE, so Luke's history must have been written after this date. This confusion between the author's knowledge and a character's knowledge is revealing: Luke was a terrible historian but a very capable fiction writer.
After noting that Theudas' efforts "came to nothing," Luke introduced Judas the Galilean, a rebel leader who appeared in the days of the census. Gamaliel would have known about Judas the Galilean, who led a tax revolt against Rome in 6 CE. This Judas was the most influential rabbi of the first century, so it is inconceivable that Gamaliel would have considered him a onetime wonder with no existing following. In fact, the Jewish war was started by Judas' later followers, sixty years after the census. Is it possible for a respected religious leader to be so out of touch with current events? Gamaliel would not have been so blatantly ignorant of current religious and political affairs.
According to Luke's convoluted history, this Judas arrived on the scene a short time after Theudas. This error by the author of Acts is simply shoddy history work. Most Christians refuse to believe that the Bible contains errors so they hopelessly try to find a Theudas that lived and died prior to 6 CE. Josephus must have forgotten about this Theudas, they "reason." But Josephus did not write about any other Theudas other than the one in 45 CE; so the hypothesis that an unknown Theudas roamed the countryside before the census is extremely unlikely.
In Ant. 20.101-102, Josephus followed the story of Theudas with the grim tale of Judas the Galilean's sons, who were crucified during the governorship of Tiberius Alexander, between 46-48 CE. Could Luke have confused Judas the Galilean with his sons? It certainly appears so. This at least restores the order of the passage. But again, we have the same problem: Gamaliel (35 CE) was foretelling the future (45-48 CE) and ascribing it to the past.
The Slavonic Josephus may hold the truth to the whole situation.
But when those noble governors [Fadus and Alexander, 44-48 CE] saw the misleading of the people, they deliberated with the scribes to seize and put them [Jewish Christians] to death, for fear lest the little be not little if it have ended in the great. But they shrank back and were alarmed over the signs, saying: "In the plain course such wonders do not occur. But if they do not issue from the counsel of God, they will quickly be convicted." And they gave them [the Christians] authority to act as they would. But afterwards, becoming pestered by them, they had them sent away, some to the Emperor, but others to Antioch, others again to distant lands, - for the testing of the matter. But Claudius removed two governors, [and] sent Cumanus [48-52 CE] (1) (Emphasis mine)
This passage was inserted into the War after the death of Agrippa I (44 CE) and before the appointment of Agrippa II (49-93 CE) and the arrival of the new Roman governor, Cumanus. During the governorships of Fadus and Alexander, the Jewish Christians were causing problems for the ruling elites. There was talk of seizing the Christians and putting them to death. This no doubt happened as the sons of Judas the Galilean were captured and crucified as reported in Ant. 20.101-102. But after this period of persecution, the Pharisees used the same reasoning to spare the Christians as was reported in Acts 5:37-39. Essentially, if the wonders were not from God, then the Christians would be convicted. "And they gave them authority to act as they would," at least for a little while. The passage then suggests that the persecutions began anew after the arrival of Cumanus. In both Acts and the Slavonic Josephus, the Jewish Christians were given the benefit of the doubt for a short period of time. It seems quite obvious that Luke took his material from the same source as the Slavonic Josephus. But once again, the dating was between 44-48 CE. There is little doubt that the Gamaliel story was fictitious. The events did occur, but not in or before 35 CE.
Eusebius, the "Father of Ecclesiastical History", adds to the confusion with his own take on the passage. He compared Theudas with the Theudas of Josephus, the one who was put to death by the sword in 45 CE. Eusebius then stated: "Immediately after this he [Josephus] mentions the famine that took place in Claudius's time." This he then compared to the account in Acts 11:27-30, where Paul and Barnabas accompanied famine relief to Jerusalem. (2) Note that Eusebius did not deal with the time discrepancies. In his history, the death of Theudas and the famine happened in close proximity to each other. And this agreed with Josephus (Ant. 20.97-102). However, Eusebius never explained how the conversion of Paul (Acts 9), which supposedly occurred in the early 30's, could be sandwiched by two events in the mid 40's (Acts 5 and Acts 11). Possibly understanding his dilemma, Eusebius then skipped the part of the passage concerning Judas the Galilean. Bringing a 6 CE figure into the equation may have been too much even for the great apologist. But this can be explained by an earlier section in his history. When describing the birth of Jesus, Eusebius quoted Luke in Acts 5:37: "After him came the rising of Judas the Galilean at the time of the registration. He persuaded a number of people to revolt under his leadership; but he too perished, and all his followers were dispersed." (3) The reference to “him” was none other than Theudas, the person who Eusebius claimed to have died in 45 CE. In addition to these shenanigans, Eusebius created one other problem: he claimed that Jesus was born at the Census of Cyrenius in 6 CE, at the time of Judas the Galilean's tax revolt. This in no way can be reconciled with the birth of Jesus according to Matthew, who had Jesus born right before the death of Herod the Great, in 6-4 BCE. In an attempt to tie Acts to Josephus, Eusebius unwittingly uncovered some major errors in New Testament chronology. This was simply a repeat of the same error by Justin, who also regurgitated Luke's timeline in 150 CE. (4)
Many scholars have recognized the impossible situation of the dating and have come up with a mediocre solution. As noted above, they simply argue that there was another Theudas who lived a short time before Judas the Galilean, approximately 1-5 CE. They claim that the silence of Josephus on such a figure does not prove that a Theudas did not live at this time. Thus, the Scriptures have been saved from error.
This "scholarly" explanation requires a stretch of the imagination. But even if it were true, then the description of Judas the Galilean can be shown to be maliciously misleading. According to Acts chapter 5, Judas was killed, his followers were scattered, and his movement failed because it was not from God. Is that what really happened?
Josephus wrote this about Judas the Galilean at the time of the Census of Cyrenius:
...there was one Judas, ...[who] became zealous to draw them to a revolt, [who] said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty. [6 CE]... for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundation of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, ...because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction. [66-70 CE] (Ant. 18.4-10) (Emphasis mine)
This passage assures us that Judas the Galilean founded a new philosophy and this new teaching infected the nation for the next sixty years. (Josephus' use of infected was similar to Tacitus' description of Christianity as a "pernicious superstition" (5) and Pliny's description as "the contagion of this superstition." (6)) In fact, this philosophy led the Jewish nation to war with Rome, the greatest power on earth. So it is obvious that the death of Judas, mysteriously missing from Josephus, did not stop or even slow his movement. Eerily, like the movement of Jesus, it flourished to a great extent after his death.
So why did the author of Acts feel it necessary to lie to the reader? The confusion or poor history concerning Theudas can be innocently explained away, but the unfair characterization of Judas the Galilean cannot. Luke purposely belittled Judas with the intent of minimizing him in the eyes of second-century Christians. He also wanted to forever cut the ties between Judas and the mythical Jesus. Surely, Jesus could never be associated with such an apparent loser. This misleading history has been working well to the present day.
However, the statement that the movement was scattered after Judas' death may have some truth to it. If the Romans captured Judas, then it would have been a prudent move to scatter or to hide. Eventually, these individuals reorganized as the Fourth Philosophy coalesced and expanded. But how was this scattering of Judas' movement any different from Jesus' disciples’ reaction after the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus? After Jesus was arrested, "then everyone (all the disciples) deserted him and fled." (Mark 14:50 and Matt. 26:56) The non-canonical Gospel of Peter stated: "But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, wept and grieved; and each one returned to his home, grieving for what had happened." (vs. 59) The disciples of Jesus fled from the scene of his arrest, denied Jesus when questioned and hid in fear from the authorities. Jesus' followers acted exactly the same as Luke's portrayal of Judas' followers (Acts 5:37). It is interesting to note that Luke did not report that Jesus' followers had fled, unlike Mark and Matthew. Instead, Luke reserved his scattering of disciples to the movement of Judas the Galilean. This, like so many other events, ties Jesus to Judas.
Judas the Galilean may have been the historical Jesus. The mythical Jesus of the Gospels was framed from the theology of Paul, and the life of the Jewish revolutionary, Judas the Galilean. The great number of coincidences between Jesus and Judas shows how much of Judas' history was incorporated into Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, it was necessary to color the history of Judas with failure. With one stroke of the pen, Christians and scholars alike have forfeited reason in favor of misguided faith. Unfortunately, Judas the Galilean has been long forgotten.
1. Slavonic Josephus, After War 2.222.
2. Eusebius, The History of the Church, Tiberius to Nero, Book 2.11-12.
3. Ibid., Christ and His Contemporaries, Book 1.5.
4. Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, p. 5; Justin, Apology, I. xlvi. 1-4.
5. Ibid., pp. 1-2, Tacitus, The Annals, xv. 44.
6. Ibid., pp. 3-4, Pliny, Epp. X (ad Traj.), xcvi.