Let's not.Let's assume the Acts 5:34-40 passage is fully historical and that it happened in the late 40s or early 50s CE:
The speeches given by the characters in Acts serve to explicate the plot of the narrative that the author of Luke-Acts is telling. Gamaliel's speech serves to make explicit something that is implicit in Acts. The continuous growth of the early church (or Jesus movement or the way, if you prefer) in the face of opposition is proof that its source is God. The first words of chapter 6 (i.e., those which immediately follow the pericope about the arrest, hearing before the council during which Gamaliel speaks, and release of the apostles (Acts 5.17-42) are:
Acts 6.1 (RSV) Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number,
It is odd that Gamaliel's speech signals with temporal indicators ('some time ago' and 'in the days of the census') but that we should then take μετὰ to mean that the story which follows not temporally, but next in the series of relatively recent movements that did not originate with God ranked in declining order of importance. That is not signaled in the text, and the only reason I can imagine to do it is to save the historical accuracy of Luke-Acts.But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men [Peter and apostles] outside for a short time. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, be careful as to what you are about to do with these men. For, some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After [μετὰ] this man, Judas of Galilee appeared in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he also perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and leave them alone, for if the source of this plan or movement is men, it will be overthrown; but if the source is God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.”
https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb20/ ... nc_1023037
Gamaliel here was not giving a lecture about the chronological history of messianic rebels. He was making an argument comparing Peter (and apostles) with the closest parallel he could think of. Obviously, the closest parallel was the most recent one so he started with Theudas. It wouldn't make sense to start making parallels with Judas of Galilee who rebelled roughly 40 years before Theudas and therefore he was not in recent memory.
So after he made the first comparison with Theudas he then was looking for another example in the sequence of closest parallels. And the next closest parallel after this man (Theudas) was Judas of Galilee. So the order of these two rebels in Gamaliel's speech is what I would expect if it was historical. The only problematic part is the word μετὰ.
The Greek preposition μετὰ (wiktionary) with accusative τοῦτον (this man) would be usually translated as chronological after. However, as I argued, Gamaliel's speech wasn't about chronological order but about a sequence of closest parallels. And the word μετὰ can also be used as the word for next in a sequence (just like the English word after). So even if the word μετὰ was used in this case somewhat confusingly the expected order of Gamaliel's parallels favors the sequential (non-chronological) interpretation of the word μετὰ.
There's also the problem that, if we accept Josephus' chronology (as I think we should), Theudas' rebellion took place c. 46 CE., which is not only after the time of Judah the Galilean, but after the time in which Gamaliel would have been speaking (i.e., fairly soon after the death of Jesus). Theudas' rebellion took place during the governorship of Cuspus Fadus (44-46 CE; Ant. 20.97-98), after the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 CE, which is narrated later (i.e., after Acts 5) in Acts 12.20-23.
It came to pass, while Cuspius 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 Jordan river; 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 take 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 [Josephus Antiquities 20.97-98]
I do not think this is a good hypothesis.
Best,
Ken
Statistics: Posted by Ken Olson — Sun Nov 03, 2024 3:03 am