In Acts 5:36-39, Gamaliel (35 AD) claimed that Theudas and Judas the Galilean were one-hit wonders and that their purposes were from men, not from God, and thus doomed to failure. Did the author of Acts properly relate the history of Theudas and Judas the Galilean?
Josephus wrote about Theudas and the sons of Judas the Galilean in Antiquities 20.97-102:
“While Fadus [44-46 AD] was procurator of Judea, a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people … to follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them that he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it. …[Fadus’ soldiers] took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem.�
“Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus [46-48 AD]. …the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius [6 AD] came to take an account of the estates of the Jews. …The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified.�
Now, according to Acts, Gamaliel (35 AD) was referring back to Theudas (44-46 AD) and Judas the Galilean (6 AD). How is this even remotely possible? Is it possible that the author of Acts took this passage from Josephus and incorrectly used Theudas and Judas the Galilean instead of Theudas and the sons of Judas the Galilean?
In addition, Acts’ charge of being a one-hit wonder does not apply to Judas the Galilean. According to Josephus, Judas the Galilean’s movement grew significantly and was responsible for the war against Rome in 66 AD (Ant. 18.4-25). Why did Acts libel this very successful Jewish leader?
Daniel T. Unterbrink
Author of Judas of Nazareth
Did Acts Misrepresent Theudas and Judas the Galilean?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Dan Unterbrink
- Student
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:17 am
-
Dan Unterbrink
- Student
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:17 am
Re: Did Acts Misrepresent Theudas and Judas the Galilean?
Post #11[Replying to post 10 by 1213]
Could Gamaliel have given his speech in 45 AD, after the death of Theudas? If so, then Paul converted after 45 AD. And in Galatians, Paul stated that he went to Jerusalem to meet with James 17 years after his conversion. That would have made it 62 AD. You see, making the Gamaliel speech much later than 35 AD really screws up the traditional timeline.
Daniel T. Unterbrink
Author of Judas of Nazareth
Could Gamaliel have given his speech in 45 AD, after the death of Theudas? If so, then Paul converted after 45 AD. And in Galatians, Paul stated that he went to Jerusalem to meet with James 17 years after his conversion. That would have made it 62 AD. You see, making the Gamaliel speech much later than 35 AD really screws up the traditional timeline.
Daniel T. Unterbrink
Author of Judas of Nazareth
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Post #12
Thanks for answering my question, Dan. I will have to sit down with Acts and Galatians to look at your concern about circumcision. However, in response to your other points, I have this to say:
It's true that we do not know the exact date of Christ's birth. We don't even know how long he lived. There are different methods for trying to determine it. Some start with the birth accounts in the gospels and estimate the year and then count forward. Others start at the estimated date that he began preaching and his crucifixion and then count backwards. There are two to three-year leeways any way you look at it -- all based on estimations. The estimations based on the gospels of Matthew and Luke both fit in those "years of leeway". Because all estimations are just that -- estimations -- all of us, whether Christian or non-Christian, cannot and should not be dogmatic about them.
As for Acts borrowing from Josephus, the majority of scholars have dismissed that as unlikely, largely because of the dating of Acts vs. the dating of Josephus' work. I am not going to bother to list all the mistakes in Josephus' work, especially those found in his history of the Jews, as you seem to be aware that they exist and they don't influence your acceptance of what he writes. I agree that a document can have some mistakes and that doesn't mean that we should throw the whole thing out.
As for Josephus not mentioning Jesus, that simply isn't true. He speaks of him twice, once talking of him as the brother of James, and this:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.'
Please note that this is the passage WITHOUT the additions that were made to it later. We have early Arabic translations that offer the above. The copies with the additions were made much later. We know that, and historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, reject the additions as bogus. But historians, both Christian and non-Christian, agree that he was talking about the Jesus of the Bible.
As for my thoughts on Theudas, I will put that in a separate post so as not to confuse things.
It's true that we do not know the exact date of Christ's birth. We don't even know how long he lived. There are different methods for trying to determine it. Some start with the birth accounts in the gospels and estimate the year and then count forward. Others start at the estimated date that he began preaching and his crucifixion and then count backwards. There are two to three-year leeways any way you look at it -- all based on estimations. The estimations based on the gospels of Matthew and Luke both fit in those "years of leeway". Because all estimations are just that -- estimations -- all of us, whether Christian or non-Christian, cannot and should not be dogmatic about them.
As for Acts borrowing from Josephus, the majority of scholars have dismissed that as unlikely, largely because of the dating of Acts vs. the dating of Josephus' work. I am not going to bother to list all the mistakes in Josephus' work, especially those found in his history of the Jews, as you seem to be aware that they exist and they don't influence your acceptance of what he writes. I agree that a document can have some mistakes and that doesn't mean that we should throw the whole thing out.
As for Josephus not mentioning Jesus, that simply isn't true. He speaks of him twice, once talking of him as the brother of James, and this:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.'
Please note that this is the passage WITHOUT the additions that were made to it later. We have early Arabic translations that offer the above. The copies with the additions were made much later. We know that, and historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, reject the additions as bogus. But historians, both Christian and non-Christian, agree that he was talking about the Jesus of the Bible.
As for my thoughts on Theudas, I will put that in a separate post so as not to confuse things.
Last edited by Overcomer on Mon Sep 08, 2014 1:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Post #13
Let’s start with the author of Acts. Most scholars agree that it is the work of Luke who also wrote the gospel that bears his name. This has been determined by both internal evidence and external (the works are credited to Luke by both the Marcion and Murtorian canons and by Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, all in the second century). The oldest manuscript of Luke that we have in our possession (the Bodmer Papyrus XIV) is dated around 175 to 225. It ascribes the book to Luke. And given that Luke was not a prominent figure in the early church, why ascribe a gospel to him if he wasn’t really the author?
The style of Acts, the vocabulary used, the fact that it is introduced to Theophilus as the gospel of Luke was, the theological information, etc., all lead scholars to believe that Luke wrote both.
The dating of Acts is germane to this discussion. While the famous Tubingen school put the writing of Acts somewhere in the second-century, that date is no longer defended because of lack of evidence. Some place it in late 70s to early 80s. A few even suggest it is as late as 80 to 95 A.D., but the evidence that it was written much earlier is strong enough to place it prior to 65 A.D. See An Introduction to the New Testament by Carson, Moo and Morris.
For example, Ben Witherington establishes the book’s genre as a monograph. Monographs were the “newspapers� of the day. They were written to chronicle events as they happened. This sets them apart from history books that chronicle events in the past. As such, the Book of Acts covers events from the mid-30s to the early 60s A.D. and, therefore, doesn’t include all-important events such as the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D. and the consequent scattering of the Jews. Given that the book stops with Paul alive and about to go on trial, plus the fact that Paul was beheaded around 64 A.D., it is most likely that Luke wrote his monograph prior to that date. See Witherington’s The Acts of the Apostles, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary for a detailed discussion of this and other reasons for the early dating.
That early date is significant – more on that later!
Obviously, Luke did not hear Gamaliel make his statements about Judas, Theudas, etc., because he spoke to the members of the Sanhedrin behind closed doors. So we have to ask ourselves where Luke got his information. He has already told us in his gospel, that he did a lot of research and spoke to a lot of eye witnesses to the events to write it. Why would he be less fastidious about writing this book? There would have been witnesses to whom he could speak.
Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin and a student of Gamaliel. Luke spent time with Paul. We know this from Acts itself where Luke changes from a third person narration to a plural fist person narration. There were several passages where he no longer writes about what “they� were doing, but talks about what “we� did, including himself in the activities with Paul. See Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-16; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16. Therefore, it is probably that Paul was one of his sources of information.
Josephus completed his Antiquities around 93 A.D. We don’t know where he got his information. But this is where the early dating of Luke becomes important. Among the criteria historians use to assess data is that of early attestation. Luke was alive and writing when the episode of Gamaliel took place in the 30s. Josephus wasn’t even born until 37 or 38 A.D. Therefore, historians give Luke the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Josephus has also been criticized for getting dates wrong and contradicting himself in his own works. For example, in one place, he says that Alcimus was a high priest for four years. In other, he says that Alcimus was a high priest for three year. Therefore, I am leery about buying everything he says, hook, line and sinker. I would need to have additional information from someone else to support what he says. I don’t consider Eusebius’ comments since he was quoting Josephus. If he quoted another independent source to back up Josephus, that would be another matter altogether. However, as I said in my previous post, while Josephus makes errors, I don’t distrust him entirely. The mistakes don’t render invalid all that he has written.
There is a goodly amount of material on this supposed discrepancy between Josephus’s statement and that of Luke. In researching the issue, I discovered that there is good reason to believe that Gamaliel’s Theudas was a different person altogether. Witherington spends several pages addressing this issue if you’re interested in reading one man’s take on the issue. I don’t have time to synopsize his arguments – or anybody else’s for that matter – so I will take the lazy way out by cutting and pasting information from another source, namely, the Christian ThinkTank:
All indications lead to the belief that Josephus and Gamaliel were NOT talking about the same "Theudas".
1. Josephus refers to a more "troublesome" figure than does Gamaliel (Antiquities, 20.5.1.97-98). Whereas Gamaliel ascribes only 400 men to T., Josephus uses the terms "a great part of the people" and "many" [The following paragraph in Josephus recounts a massacre of over 20,000 people, so a band of only 400 would probably not be 'newsworthy' enough for Josephus to even mention. Therefore the ISBE insistence that Josephus WOULD HAVE mentioned so 'significant' an event is unwarranted.].
2. The terminology for the figure is likewise somewhat different: Gamaliel says T. was 'claiming to be somebody', Josephus uses the terms 'magician' and 'prophet'.
3. Gamaliel says that T's followers 'rallied to him' (a more political sounding term); Josephus says T.'s followers took their effects and were migrating to the river Jordan.
4. Gamaliel says that T. was simply killed; Josephus says T was captured and then beheaded, and the head then taken to Jerusalem.
5. Gamaliel says that after T was killed, "all his followers dispersed", but Josephus says that many of the followers were killed by the Roman troop of horsemen, and that many of them were likewise captured and arrested.
6. (Additionally, it should be noted that the scholar Origen referred to a Theudas active before the birth of Jesus as well, in Contra Celsum 1.57, although it is possible that this is simply a referral to Acts already.)
At the surface, these events look like different occasions, even though the name 'Theudas' is the same. That this would not create a prima facie case for identity, can be seen from the following considerations:
1. Although 'Theudas' was not a common name itself, it does show up in Jerusalem ossuaries close in time, e.g. Inscription 1255).
2. 'Theudas' shows up in the Papyrii as hypocoristic forms (i.e. "pet" names, 'nicknames') for many Greek theophoric names (e.g. Theodotus, Theodorus, Theodotion, etc.) [New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol 4.183-185], so it could refer to any number of people at the time.
3. At the time there was a prevalence for having both a Greek AND a Hebrew name, with the Greek name having the same or very similar meaning as the Hebrew. This pattern shows up in the Jerusalem ossuaries and the 'Goliath' family in Jericho [e.g. 'Theodorus' (gk) for 'Nathanel' (hb)]. With this in mind, 'Theudas' could be Greek for a wide range of Hebrew names: Jonathan, Nathanael, Mattathias, Hananias, Jehohanan, etc. In one case, the synagogue ruler in Ophel was listed under his alternate Greek name "Theodotus".
4. We do know that there were many smaller tumults in Judea after the death of Herod the Great (Josephus uses the phrase "ten thousand" in Antiquities, 17.10.4.269-8.285!), and that we do not have data on many of them. The data seems to indicate that that the two that we know of led by a 'Theudas' are NOT the same event.
Therefore, the reference by Gamaliel to the minor exploits of a Theudas was not necessarily historically illegitimate or confused.
http://www.christianthinktank.com/qtheudy.html
The style of Acts, the vocabulary used, the fact that it is introduced to Theophilus as the gospel of Luke was, the theological information, etc., all lead scholars to believe that Luke wrote both.
The dating of Acts is germane to this discussion. While the famous Tubingen school put the writing of Acts somewhere in the second-century, that date is no longer defended because of lack of evidence. Some place it in late 70s to early 80s. A few even suggest it is as late as 80 to 95 A.D., but the evidence that it was written much earlier is strong enough to place it prior to 65 A.D. See An Introduction to the New Testament by Carson, Moo and Morris.
For example, Ben Witherington establishes the book’s genre as a monograph. Monographs were the “newspapers� of the day. They were written to chronicle events as they happened. This sets them apart from history books that chronicle events in the past. As such, the Book of Acts covers events from the mid-30s to the early 60s A.D. and, therefore, doesn’t include all-important events such as the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D. and the consequent scattering of the Jews. Given that the book stops with Paul alive and about to go on trial, plus the fact that Paul was beheaded around 64 A.D., it is most likely that Luke wrote his monograph prior to that date. See Witherington’s The Acts of the Apostles, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary for a detailed discussion of this and other reasons for the early dating.
That early date is significant – more on that later!
Obviously, Luke did not hear Gamaliel make his statements about Judas, Theudas, etc., because he spoke to the members of the Sanhedrin behind closed doors. So we have to ask ourselves where Luke got his information. He has already told us in his gospel, that he did a lot of research and spoke to a lot of eye witnesses to the events to write it. Why would he be less fastidious about writing this book? There would have been witnesses to whom he could speak.
Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin and a student of Gamaliel. Luke spent time with Paul. We know this from Acts itself where Luke changes from a third person narration to a plural fist person narration. There were several passages where he no longer writes about what “they� were doing, but talks about what “we� did, including himself in the activities with Paul. See Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-16; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16. Therefore, it is probably that Paul was one of his sources of information.
Josephus completed his Antiquities around 93 A.D. We don’t know where he got his information. But this is where the early dating of Luke becomes important. Among the criteria historians use to assess data is that of early attestation. Luke was alive and writing when the episode of Gamaliel took place in the 30s. Josephus wasn’t even born until 37 or 38 A.D. Therefore, historians give Luke the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Josephus has also been criticized for getting dates wrong and contradicting himself in his own works. For example, in one place, he says that Alcimus was a high priest for four years. In other, he says that Alcimus was a high priest for three year. Therefore, I am leery about buying everything he says, hook, line and sinker. I would need to have additional information from someone else to support what he says. I don’t consider Eusebius’ comments since he was quoting Josephus. If he quoted another independent source to back up Josephus, that would be another matter altogether. However, as I said in my previous post, while Josephus makes errors, I don’t distrust him entirely. The mistakes don’t render invalid all that he has written.
There is a goodly amount of material on this supposed discrepancy between Josephus’s statement and that of Luke. In researching the issue, I discovered that there is good reason to believe that Gamaliel’s Theudas was a different person altogether. Witherington spends several pages addressing this issue if you’re interested in reading one man’s take on the issue. I don’t have time to synopsize his arguments – or anybody else’s for that matter – so I will take the lazy way out by cutting and pasting information from another source, namely, the Christian ThinkTank:
All indications lead to the belief that Josephus and Gamaliel were NOT talking about the same "Theudas".
1. Josephus refers to a more "troublesome" figure than does Gamaliel (Antiquities, 20.5.1.97-98). Whereas Gamaliel ascribes only 400 men to T., Josephus uses the terms "a great part of the people" and "many" [The following paragraph in Josephus recounts a massacre of over 20,000 people, so a band of only 400 would probably not be 'newsworthy' enough for Josephus to even mention. Therefore the ISBE insistence that Josephus WOULD HAVE mentioned so 'significant' an event is unwarranted.].
2. The terminology for the figure is likewise somewhat different: Gamaliel says T. was 'claiming to be somebody', Josephus uses the terms 'magician' and 'prophet'.
3. Gamaliel says that T's followers 'rallied to him' (a more political sounding term); Josephus says T.'s followers took their effects and were migrating to the river Jordan.
4. Gamaliel says that T. was simply killed; Josephus says T was captured and then beheaded, and the head then taken to Jerusalem.
5. Gamaliel says that after T was killed, "all his followers dispersed", but Josephus says that many of the followers were killed by the Roman troop of horsemen, and that many of them were likewise captured and arrested.
6. (Additionally, it should be noted that the scholar Origen referred to a Theudas active before the birth of Jesus as well, in Contra Celsum 1.57, although it is possible that this is simply a referral to Acts already.)
At the surface, these events look like different occasions, even though the name 'Theudas' is the same. That this would not create a prima facie case for identity, can be seen from the following considerations:
1. Although 'Theudas' was not a common name itself, it does show up in Jerusalem ossuaries close in time, e.g. Inscription 1255).
2. 'Theudas' shows up in the Papyrii as hypocoristic forms (i.e. "pet" names, 'nicknames') for many Greek theophoric names (e.g. Theodotus, Theodorus, Theodotion, etc.) [New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol 4.183-185], so it could refer to any number of people at the time.
3. At the time there was a prevalence for having both a Greek AND a Hebrew name, with the Greek name having the same or very similar meaning as the Hebrew. This pattern shows up in the Jerusalem ossuaries and the 'Goliath' family in Jericho [e.g. 'Theodorus' (gk) for 'Nathanel' (hb)]. With this in mind, 'Theudas' could be Greek for a wide range of Hebrew names: Jonathan, Nathanael, Mattathias, Hananias, Jehohanan, etc. In one case, the synagogue ruler in Ophel was listed under his alternate Greek name "Theodotus".
4. We do know that there were many smaller tumults in Judea after the death of Herod the Great (Josephus uses the phrase "ten thousand" in Antiquities, 17.10.4.269-8.285!), and that we do not have data on many of them. The data seems to indicate that that the two that we know of led by a 'Theudas' are NOT the same event.
Therefore, the reference by Gamaliel to the minor exploits of a Theudas was not necessarily historically illegitimate or confused.
http://www.christianthinktank.com/qtheudy.html
-
Dan Unterbrink
- Student
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:17 am
Re: Did Acts Misrepresent Theudas and Judas the Galilean?
Post #14[Replying to 1213]
The 35 AD estimate is the traditional dating based on a crucifixion date of 33 AD. If the crucifixion occurred a few years earlier then this date would also be a few years earlier.
I am not arguing in favor of the traditional timeline, but rather am illustrating some of the weaknesses of that timeline. I think the whole Gamaliel speech was invented by Luke to further his goal of presenting a unified church. Luke often changed Josephus' dates and characters for that very purpose. For example, the stoning of Stephen and Saul's conversion were placed around 35 AD for two reasons. First, the stoning of Stephen replaced the historical stoning of James (62 AD), thus emphasizing the liberal (Pauline) gospel being taught by the Seven (another invention) over the Law that was preached by James. And second, moving the persecution by Saul to 35 AD from 62 AD solved the problem of relating the true activities of Paul (Ant. 20.200-214).
Daniel T. Unterbrink
The 35 AD estimate is the traditional dating based on a crucifixion date of 33 AD. If the crucifixion occurred a few years earlier then this date would also be a few years earlier.
I am not arguing in favor of the traditional timeline, but rather am illustrating some of the weaknesses of that timeline. I think the whole Gamaliel speech was invented by Luke to further his goal of presenting a unified church. Luke often changed Josephus' dates and characters for that very purpose. For example, the stoning of Stephen and Saul's conversion were placed around 35 AD for two reasons. First, the stoning of Stephen replaced the historical stoning of James (62 AD), thus emphasizing the liberal (Pauline) gospel being taught by the Seven (another invention) over the Law that was preached by James. And second, moving the persecution by Saul to 35 AD from 62 AD solved the problem of relating the true activities of Paul (Ant. 20.200-214).
Daniel T. Unterbrink
-
Dan Unterbrink
- Student
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:17 am
Re: Did Acts Misrepresent Theudas and Judas the Galilean?
Post #15[Replying to post 10 by 1213]
The 35 AD estimate is the traditional dating based on a crucifixion date of 33 AD. If the crucifixion occurred a few years earlier then this date would also be a few years earlier.
I am not arguing in favor of the traditional timeline, but rather am illustrating some of the weaknesses of that timeline. I think the whole Gamaliel speech was invented by Luke to further his goal of presenting a unified church. Luke often changed Josephus' dates and characters for that very purpose. For example, the stoning of Stephen and Saul's conversion were placed around 35 AD for two reasons. First, the stoning of Stephen replaced the historical stoning of James (62 AD), thus emphasizing the liberal (Pauline) gospel being taught by the Seven (another invention) over the Law that was preached by James. And second, moving the persecution by Saul to 35 AD from 62 AD solved the problem of relating the true activities of Paul (Ant. 20.200-214).
Daniel T. Unterbrink
Author of Judas of Nazareth
The 35 AD estimate is the traditional dating based on a crucifixion date of 33 AD. If the crucifixion occurred a few years earlier then this date would also be a few years earlier.
I am not arguing in favor of the traditional timeline, but rather am illustrating some of the weaknesses of that timeline. I think the whole Gamaliel speech was invented by Luke to further his goal of presenting a unified church. Luke often changed Josephus' dates and characters for that very purpose. For example, the stoning of Stephen and Saul's conversion were placed around 35 AD for two reasons. First, the stoning of Stephen replaced the historical stoning of James (62 AD), thus emphasizing the liberal (Pauline) gospel being taught by the Seven (another invention) over the Law that was preached by James. And second, moving the persecution by Saul to 35 AD from 62 AD solved the problem of relating the true activities of Paul (Ant. 20.200-214).
Daniel T. Unterbrink
Author of Judas of Nazareth
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Post #16
.
Those who attempt to argue against Dan REALLY should read his book. I have. He makes STRONG points that you (generic term) are unlikely to be able to refute.
What many believe based on church dogma, tradition and literature may NOT be truthful and accurate.
Think about it, investigate -- rather than just respond by emotion and dogma.
Those who attempt to argue against Dan REALLY should read his book. I have. He makes STRONG points that you (generic term) are unlikely to be able to refute.
What many believe based on church dogma, tradition and literature may NOT be truthful and accurate.
Think about it, investigate -- rather than just respond by emotion and dogma.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
-
Dan Unterbrink
- Student
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:17 am
Post #17
[Replying to post 13 by Overcomer]
Hi Overcomer,
I'll answer your posts with several of my own.
First, you write that no one knows where Josephus got his information. Josephus was part of the Jewish resistance against Rome, so he did have an idea of the politics of the time. After the Jewish War, Josephus sided with the Romans and had access to their records (propaganda for Titus). In The Life of Flavius Josephus verses 362-367, Josephus claimed that he corroborated his history with the records of King Agrippa II, claiming that Agrippa wrote 62 letters to him concerning points of history. So, all in all, Josephus had more records at his disposal than anyone else.
Second, you claim that Paul was martyred in Rome after the Great Fire in 64 AD. It is very possible that Cephas died in Rome in 64 AD but not Paul. In 67 AD, Paul was meeting with Nero in modern-day Greece. And this meeting occurred after Nero had murdered his pregnant wife by kicking her stomach in a fit of rage and after Nero had slaughtered the Messianic Jews after the Great Fire of 64 AD.
Third, you date Acts at around 60 AD since it ends with Paul supposedly being sent to Rome (see above). Conveniently, Acts does not mention the most important points in "Christian" history: the stoning of James in 62 AD, the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD and the Jewish War with Rome (66-70 AD). In reality, Acts did mention the stoning of James but under the guise of the stoning of Stephen. Note that Saul/Paul persecuted the poor after the stoning of James in 62 AD (Ant. 20.200-214) and did the same in Acts' revised history, but now in 35 AD. In addition, most competent scholars agree that the Gospels were written after the Jewish War or post 70 AD.
I'll write more later.
Daniel T. Unterbrink
Author of Judas of Nazareth
Hi Overcomer,
I'll answer your posts with several of my own.
First, you write that no one knows where Josephus got his information. Josephus was part of the Jewish resistance against Rome, so he did have an idea of the politics of the time. After the Jewish War, Josephus sided with the Romans and had access to their records (propaganda for Titus). In The Life of Flavius Josephus verses 362-367, Josephus claimed that he corroborated his history with the records of King Agrippa II, claiming that Agrippa wrote 62 letters to him concerning points of history. So, all in all, Josephus had more records at his disposal than anyone else.
Second, you claim that Paul was martyred in Rome after the Great Fire in 64 AD. It is very possible that Cephas died in Rome in 64 AD but not Paul. In 67 AD, Paul was meeting with Nero in modern-day Greece. And this meeting occurred after Nero had murdered his pregnant wife by kicking her stomach in a fit of rage and after Nero had slaughtered the Messianic Jews after the Great Fire of 64 AD.
Third, you date Acts at around 60 AD since it ends with Paul supposedly being sent to Rome (see above). Conveniently, Acts does not mention the most important points in "Christian" history: the stoning of James in 62 AD, the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD and the Jewish War with Rome (66-70 AD). In reality, Acts did mention the stoning of James but under the guise of the stoning of Stephen. Note that Saul/Paul persecuted the poor after the stoning of James in 62 AD (Ant. 20.200-214) and did the same in Acts' revised history, but now in 35 AD. In addition, most competent scholars agree that the Gospels were written after the Jewish War or post 70 AD.
I'll write more later.
Daniel T. Unterbrink
Author of Judas of Nazareth
-
Dan Unterbrink
- Student
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:17 am
Post #18
[Replying to post 13 by Overcomer]
Let's assume the unlikely, that you are right and Theudas appeared prior to 6 AD. That still does not excuse the misrepresentation of Judas the Galilean. According to Acts 5:37, "Judas 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." (Mark and Matthew scatter Jesus' disciples (Matt.26:56; Mark 14:50) while Luke scatters the disciples of Judas the Galilean).
So, was Judas a one-hit wonder? According to Josephus, Judas' movement grew to an incredible degree and led to the war with Rome 60 years after the census (Ant. 18.4-10 and 18:23-25). So, anyone writing after 70 AD could claim that Judas was a failure but no one before 70 AD could claim this. Thus, Gamaliel (35 AD) could not have credibly denounced Judas' movement. This whole episode was invented by Luke just as he invented so many other things.
Daniel T. Unterbrink
Author of Judas of Nazareth
Let's assume the unlikely, that you are right and Theudas appeared prior to 6 AD. That still does not excuse the misrepresentation of Judas the Galilean. According to Acts 5:37, "Judas 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." (Mark and Matthew scatter Jesus' disciples (Matt.26:56; Mark 14:50) while Luke scatters the disciples of Judas the Galilean).
So, was Judas a one-hit wonder? According to Josephus, Judas' movement grew to an incredible degree and led to the war with Rome 60 years after the census (Ant. 18.4-10 and 18:23-25). So, anyone writing after 70 AD could claim that Judas was a failure but no one before 70 AD could claim this. Thus, Gamaliel (35 AD) could not have credibly denounced Judas' movement. This whole episode was invented by Luke just as he invented so many other things.
Daniel T. Unterbrink
Author of Judas of Nazareth
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #19
A number of people have proposed that Luke used Josephus as a source (which would put the writing of Luke around 95 to 120.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
