Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 5:36
For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to naught.
36. For before these days rose up Theudas ] Gamaliel proceeds to give illustrations that mere pretenders will come to naught. But about the mention of Theudas much discussion has been raised, because it is declared that the statements of Gamaliel contradict the facts recorded by Josephus, and therefore cannot be received as historic. In this way discredit would be thrown on all the rest of his speech.
It is true that Josephus mentions a Theudas ( Antiq. xx. 5. 1) who rose up and professed himself a prophet, in the time when Fadus was procurator of Juda, about a.d. 45 or 46, and persuaded a great part of the people to take their goods and follow him to the river Jordan, through which he promised he would afford them a miraculous passage. This man, who with many of his followers was destroyed, could clearly not be the leader of the revolt which took place before that raised by Judas of Galilee in the time of the taxing which took place some few years after our Lord was born. But when we turn to the history which Josephus gives of the events which preceded this rebellion of Judas we find him saying ( Antiq. xvii. 10. 4), “At this time [i.e. in the days when Varus was president of Syria] there were ten thousand other disorders in Juda, which were like tumults.” Of these innumerable disturbances he gives account of no more than four, but presently in the same chapter says: “Juda was full of robberies, and whenever the several companies of the rebels could light upon any one to head them, he was created a king immediately.” Then in a brief space after ( Antiq xviii. 1. 1) Josephus proceeds to mention Judas of Galilee, though he calls him sometimes ( Antiq xviii. 1. 6; xx. 5. 2; B. J. ii. 8. 1, and 17. 8) a Galilean and sometimes a Gaulonite (xviii. 1. 1), and his rebellion in the days of the taxing. Now amid so many outbreaks, spoken of but not described, there is no violence in supposing that one may have been led by a Theudas, a name not very uncommon, and thus the order of events as stated by Gamaliel would be perfectly correct. The great multitude of the followers of the later Theudas indicates a far larger number than the four hundred of whom Gamaliel speaks. Moreover while Gamaliel’s Theudas was killed and his followers dispersed, Josephus says that many of the adherents of his Theudas were slain, and many taken prisoners. There seems, therefore, more reason to identify this Theudas of whom mention is made by Gamaliel with some of the ten thousand rebels whom Josephus speaks of before the time of the census, than to suppose that Gamaliel, who is correct in his account of Judas, has mentioned in the other case a rebel who did not rise till long after the time of which he is speaking.
That such false leaders were numerous and had caused a terror in the minds of the more thoughtful among the Jews we can see from the Jewish literature which has come down to us. Thus (T. B. Sanhedrin 97 b) Rabbi Shemuel bar Nachmani on the authority of Rabbi Jonathan, expounding Hab 2:3, says, “It means, may his spirit be blown away (perish) whosoever over-anxiously calculates about the ends. For people have said [in consequence of such calculations] when the end [so calculated] came, and he [Messiah] did not come, that he would never come at all. Yet wait anxiously for him, for it says if he tarry wait anxiously for him.” We have here the despairing echo of Gamaliel’s words, “Let them alone.”
boasting himself to be somebody ] Literally, saying that he was, &c. Of course each one of these leaders professed himself to be the Messiah, for that was what the people in their distress were ever looking for.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For before those days – The advice of Gamaliel was to permit these men to go on. The arguments by which he enforced his advice were:
- That there were cases or precedents in point Act 5:36-37; and,
- That if it should turn out to be truly of God, it would be a solemn affair to be involved in the consequences of opposing him. How long before these days this transaction occurred, cannot now be determined, as it is not certain to what case Gamaliel refers.
Rose up – That is, commenced or excited an insurrection.
Theudas – This was a name quite common among the Jews. Of this man nothing more is known than is here recorded. Josephus (Antiq., book 20, chapter 5) mentions one Theudas, in the time of Fadus, the procurator of Judea, in the reign of the Emperor Claudius (45 or 46 a.d.), who persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them and follow him to the river Jordan. He told them he was a prophet, and that he would divide the river and lead them over. Fadus, however, came suddenly upon them, and slew many of them. Theudas was taken alive and conveyed to Jerusalem, and there beheaded. But this occurred at least ten or fifteen years after this discourse of Gamaliel. Many efforts have been made to reconcile Luke and Josephus, on the supposition that they refer to the same man. Lightfoot supposed that Josephus had made an error in chronology. But there is no reason to suppose that there is reference to the same event; and the fact that Josephus has not recorded the insurrection referred to by Gamaliel does not militate at all against the account in the Acts . For:
- Luke, for anything that appears to the contrary, is quite as credible an historian as Josephus.
(2)The name Theudas was a common name among the Jews; and there is no improbability that there were two leaders of an insurrection of this name. If it is improbable, the improbability would affect Josephus credit as much as that of Luke.
(3)It is altogether improbable that Gamaliel should refer to a case which was not well authenticated, and that Luke should record a speech of this kind unless it was delivered, when it would be so easy to detect the error.
- Josephus has recorded many instances of insurrection and revolt. He has represented the country as in an unsettled state, and by no means professes to give an account of all that occurred. Thus, he says (Antiq., xvii. 10, section 4) that there were at this time ten thousand other disorders in Judea; and (section 8) that Judea was full of robberies. When this Theudas lived cannot be ascertained; but as Gamaliel mentions him before Judas of Galilee, it is probable that he lived not far from the time that our Saviour was born; at a time when many false prophets appeared, claiming to be the Messiah.
Boasting himself to be somebody – Claiming to be an eminent prophet probably, or the Messiah.
Obeyed him – The word used here is the one commonly used to denote belief. As many as believed on him, or gave credit to his pretensions.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Act 5:36-37
Before these days rose up Theudas.
Theudas: an ancient personage with modern lessons
Who Theudas was I do not know, and have carefully refrained from inquiring. Biographical details are of small importance when we are in search of substantial principles. The point of this passage lies in the fact that Theudas was a wholly insignificant person, just like a thousand other men who have made a noise in their day, drawn the gaze of the world for a few hours and then passed into silence and oblivion. The apostles are summoned before the council which has already resolved on their death. Then stands up Gamaliel–the teacher of Paul, a man had in reputation among all the people–and reads the excited Sanhedrin a lesson out of their own national history. He says in substance: This alarm, this hurrying to and fro, this calling for the scourge and the dungeon, this breathless haste, is all the result of narrow vision and small outlook. Our own time is not the first to witness startling movements. Before these days rose up Theudas, and drew four hundred men after him. Yet that uprising which seemed so terrible has been almost forgotten. Wider horizon would make us calm. Learn the lesson of your past. Gods great plan moves through the ages to its sure accomplishment. If this new teaching be not of Him, it will be like all the rest–a mere noise followed by a great silence. But if God is behind this teaching–beware lest haply ye be found to fight against God. These words may imply that Gamaliel was almost ready to embrace Christianity, or they may indicate only that he was a broad and tolerant Jew. In either case the application to our restless, eager, disputatious age is very clear. Old formulae are recast, until many souls more timid than wise, loving quiet more than truth, cry, Alas I what shall we do? The true answer cannot be given either by intense partisanship or by cynical indifference. The true answer is to be found in the unfaltering faith which sees God behind the shifting panorama of human thought and action, and knows that whatever lights may cross our firmament–whether glowing planet, shooting meteor, or steady star–He calleth them all by name in the greatness of His power.
I. Gods kingdom on earth is not a novelty. The first thing for us to remember is that the kingdom of God on earth is not a novelty, Christianity is not an experiment, and that before these days ten thousand similar dangers have been triumphantly surmounted. The man who is not in league with the past cannot face the future. We need to see things in large perspective, to stand off from our little immediate task, as the painter stands away from his canvas, that he may return to it with surer touch. Even in the common responsibilities of daily life some knowledge of history is quite as important as acquaintance with the multiplication table. Let the man who despairs of our political leaders to-day read the story of the attacks made on Washington in the darkest days of the Revolution. Let the man who is bewildered by the sudden influx of new knowledge, and cannot adjust himself at once to the fresh truth poured into his mind, remember the great shock given to humanity–a shock which seemed to dislocate all systems of science and all hymns of the faith–when Copernicus proclaimed that this earth, instead of being the centre of the universe, for the sake of which sun and stars were created, around which the ordered sky revolved, was but a mote floating in the boundless void, an insignificant star sending its tiny ray into the infinite darkness. The present generation is specially deficient in historical perspective. Our life has been so swift, so wholly modern, that we are intensely individual, delighting often in segregation from the past. Thus, having small background for present endeavour, we grow restless and are easily tossed by conflicting winds. History says, too, as Nature to Emerson: Why so hot, my little man? The history of the Christian Church is a splendid armoury for faith. The future of Christianity does not depend on what is won or lost this morning. The success of Gods kingdom in the earth is not staked on the success of my little scheme any more than the coming of spring depends on the success of the pansy bed in my garden. That kingdom was before we came into being, it will endure when we are gone–it is the work of Him who was, and is, and is to be, the Almighty. Behind all the men that come and go, the theories that rise and fall, stands God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own.
II. A background of triumphant history. We are writing now, but never before, 1892 on all our letters, notes, deeds. These figures are vastly more than a conventional argument. They are eloquent with strong assurance. They are like a flag brought home from battle, smoke-begrimed, blood-stained, bullet-torn, but bright with its original splendid colour, and vocal with great inspiring speech. We have no right to live as did the Church of the first century, when much was tentative and experimental. We have a background of triumphant history. Steadily is the kingdom of Christ spreading from the river unto the ends of the earth. Witty and keen have been the attacks on the faith–sometimes they have purged it from excrescences, oftener they have glanced off and rebounded. The opponents of Christianity are remembered because of the grandeur of what they attacked. In this Christian land we do not accept Christian faith to see whether it is true; we accept it as we accept the earth beneath our hurrying feet and the untroubled sky that overarches all. Hence we see the place and purpose of the Old Testament, whose peculiar function is to show us that God is behind and within human history, and that all history culminates in the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gods primary revelation is not through the speech, but through events. The Old Testament precedes the New to show us God behind and within the nations life, and when we once see and believe that, a historical Saviour becomes not only credible but inevitable.
III. Use of the historical in scripture. A noble Christian man recently told me that in his private reading of the Psalms he always used an expurgated edition, from which all imprecatory and otherwise objectionable passages had been expunged. Surely this is the acme of religious prudery, and the fastidiousness of one who is totally devoid of the historical sense. If we expurgate the Songs of David, why not expurgate his life also? Surely his deeds of vengeance are worse than his revengeful prayers. Then having struck out from his life all that offends our purism, and having made him the man he ought to have been but was not, we shall be ready to remodel the entire history of Israel–very much as Cibber proposed to remodel Shakespeare, making King Lear to be at last rewarded for his suffering, and making the tragedy of Hamlet to end with the death of the king and queen and the happiness of Ophelia. When we have been through the Bible and struck out the great black record of human sin, we shall have banished the shining story of redemption also. The imprecatory Psalms are as truly the expression of a certain stage in Israels life, and so part of the story of redemption, as the paintings of the early Byzantine school are part of the history of Christian art. What if the faces limned by those first Christian painters are hard and wooden? They are to us the priceless expression of a great endeavour which has made Iraphael and Da Vinci possible. To lift the Psalter to the level of the Sermon on the Mount is to spoil them both. But the most practical thing is still unsaid. When a man has attained the historical point of view, when his Bible is no longer a fiat surface like a Chinese picture, but a tong vista of historical persons and events, and the great story of Gods love for man is seen slowly unfolding through the millenniums, when a man keeps himself familiar with Gods working before these days, he will possess a spiritual poise and central peace which nothing can disturb. It is a great thing to believe in a God who watches over my life and cares for me. It is a grander thing to rest in a God whose purposes are larger and longer than any concerns of mine possibly can be. I could not admire the Hudson River if I thought its only purpose was to fill my drinking cup. I could not wonder greatly at the sun if I thought its only purpose was to shine in at my window. I need a God greater than my need. I want a Saviour far beyond my private personal lack. If I do not believe in a God who has some grander work to do than to make me happy, I shall soon cease to believe at all. I shall soon find that God does not always make me happy, and then I shall lose faith. Through all ages runs His purpose. From everlasting to everlasting His great thoughts realise themselves in the ceaseless unfolding of creation, and our highest glory is not to bend His purpose but to bend our lives into harmony with it. Has any man come here in a state of tumult and alarm, perplexed by the problems of the time, and confronted by movements he cannot fathom? I bid you think of the God who before these days has guided His Church and ever will guide. Is any man here saying: God has forgotten me; my plan does not prosper? Is your plan, then, the first thing in your desire, or Gods plan? Is it the building of your nest or the achievement of the worlds redemption? He is the Alpha and Omega–we are to fit in somewhere in His Divine alphabet and spell out His eternal thought. (W. H. P. Faunce, D. D.)
The false prophet and the true
I. The false.
1. Rises up of his own accord as Theudas and Judas.
2. Boasts himself to be somebody.
3. Draws away the people after him.
4. Falls from heaven as a wandering star. Theudas and Judas perished, and their followers were dispersed.
II. The true.
1. Is raised up by God.
2. Does not boast of himself, but gives glory to God.
3. Leads souls to the Lord.
4. Will shine as stars for ever and ever. (K. Gerok.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 36. Rose up Theudas] Josephus, Ant. lib. xx. cap. 4, sect. 1, mentions one named Theudas who was the author of an insurrection; about whom there has been much controversy whether he were the person spoken of here by Gamaliel. Every circumstance, as related by Josephus agrees well enough with what is referred to here, except the chronology; for the Theudas mentioned by Josephus made his insurrection when Fadus was governor of Judea; which was at least ten years after the time in which the apostles were brought before this council. Much labour has been thrown away in unsuccessful attempts to reconcile the historian and the evangelist, when it is very probable they speak of different transactions. Bp. Pearce thinks “the whole difficulty will disappear if we follow the opinion of Abp. Usher, who imagined that Luke’s Theudas was the same with that Judas of whom Josephus gives this account, Ant. lib. xvii. cap. 12, sect. 5; and War, lib. ii. cap. 4, sect. 1: ‘that a little after the death of Herod the Great, he raised an insurrection in Galilee, and aimed at getting the sovereignty of Judea,’ and that he was defeated and put to death, as is implied in sect. 10, of the same chapter. That Theudas and Judas might be names for the same person, Bp. Pearce thinks probable from the consideration, that the same apostle who is called Judas in Joh 14:22, and Lu 6:16, and called Jude in Jude 1:1, is, in Mr 3:18, called Thaddeus; and, in Mt 10:3, is also called Lebbeus. This apostle having the names Judas and Thaddeus and Lebbeus given to him, two of these must have been the same; because no Jew had more than two names, unless when a patronymic name was given to him, as when Joseph surnamed Justus was called Barsabas, i.e. the son of Saba. It is no unreasonable thing to suppose that Thaddeus and Theudas are the same name; and that therefore the person called Theudas in Luke is probably the same whom Josephus, in the places above quoted, calls Judas.”
Dr. Lightfoot thinks that “Josephus has made a slip in his chronology;” and rather concludes that the Theudas mentioned in the Ant. lib. xx. cap. 4, sect. 1, is the person referred to in the text. I confess the matter does not appear to me of so much consequence; it is mentioned by Gamaliel in a careless way, and St. Luke, as we have already seen, scrupulously gives the Lords of every speaker. The story was no doubt well known, and there were no doubts formed on it by the Jewish Council. We see plainly the end for which it was produced; and we see that it answered this end most amply; and certainly we have no farther concern with Gamaliel or his story.
Boasting himself to be somebody] , Saying that he was a great personage, i.e., according to the supposition of Bp. Pearce, setting himself up to be king of the Jews: see the preceding note. After , himself, , great one, is added by several very respectable MSS. and versions.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Before these days; probably under the reign of Augustus, as he whom Josephus mentions was another under the reign of Claudius.
Theudas; some suppose it a contracted name of Theodorus, as Demas is thought to be of Demetrius; though others think it to be of a Hebrew original.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
For before these days rose up Theudas,….. There is one of this name Josephus d speaks of, who set up for a prophet, and drew a large number of people after him; pretending, that if they would follow him to the river Jordan, and take their goods along with them, he would but give the word, and the waters would divide and leave them passage to go over dryfoot; but Cuspius Fadus, who then had the administration of Judea, sent out some troops of horse, before they were aware, and killed many of them, and took divers others, and brought them in triumph to Jerusalem, with the head of Theudas. This account agrees with this instance of Gamaliel, only differs in chronology; since, according to Gamaliel’s account, this case of Theudas was some time ago, and must have been before now, or he could not have mentioned it; whereas the story Josephus relates, as being in the times of Cuspius Fadus, was several years after this. Some think Josephus is mistaken in his chronology, and then all is right. Others, that another Theudas is intended; who, as Origen says e, was before the birth of Christ, since he was before Judas of Galilee, who rose up in the days of the taxing, at which time Christ was born: and the phrase, before these days, seems to design a good while ago. This name was in use among the Jews, and is either the same with , “Thuda”, or “Thoda”, so the Syriac version reads; one of the disciples of Christ was so called by the Jews f, whose name was Thaddeus: or with , “Thudus”; one of this name, said g to be a man of Rome, is frequently mentioned in the Talmud; and another also that was a physician h; but both different from this “Theodas”. The Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions read, Theodas; and some take it to be a contraction of Theodotus, Theodorus, or Theodosius. Just as Theucharis is put for Theocharis, and Theudosia for Theodosia: but it seems rather to be an Hebrew name; and so Jerom i took it to be, who renders it “praise”: but who the man was is not certain; however, he rose up, as Gamaliel says, and made an insurrection,
boasting himself to be some body, or “some great one”, as the Alexandrian copy, and three of Beza’s copies read, and two of Stephens’s, and the Complutensian cdition; and as read also the Syriac and Arabic versions; just as Simon Magus did afterwards, Ac 8:9 and so Josephus’s Theudas gave out, that he was a prophet, and promised great things to the people, as to divide the waters of Jordan for them, by a word speaking and lead them through it as on dry land:
to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves; who believing what he said, put themselves under his command, and set him at the head of them:
who was slain: so Josephus’s Theudas had his head cut off by the troops of Cuspius Fadus, the Roman governor:
and as many as obeyed him were scattered and brought to nought; some killed, and others taken; and so the faction was quelled, and came to nothing. This instance Gamaliel produces, to show that impostors and seditious persons, such as the apostles were thought to be, seldom succeeded, but generally failed in their attempts, and were blasted; and with the same view he mentions the following one.
d Antiqu. l. 20. c. 4. sect. 1. Vid. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 11. e Contr. Cels. l. 1. p. 44. f T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 43. 1. g T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 19. 1. & Pesachim, fol. 53. 1, 2. & Betza, fol. 23. 1. & T. Hieros. Pesachim. fol. 34. 1. & Yom Tob. fol. 61. 3. & Juchasin, fol. 105. 2. h T. Bab. Nazir, fol. 52. 1. & Sanhedrin, fol 33. 1. & 93. 1. & Beracot, fol. 28. 2. i De Nominibus Hebraicis, fol. 106. D.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Theudas (). Luke represents Gamaliel here about A.D. 35 as speaking of a man who led a revolt before that of Judas the Galilean in connection with the enrolment under Quirinius (Cyrenius) in A.D. 6. But Josephus (Ant. XX. 5, 1) tells of a Theudas who led a similar insurrection in the reign of Claudius about A.D. 44 or 45. Josephus (Ant. XVIII. 1, 6; XX. 5, 2; War ii. 8, 1 and 17, 8) also describes Judas the Galilean or Gaulonite and places him about A.D. 6. It is not certain that Josephus and Luke (Gamaliel) refer to the same Theudas as the name is an abbreviation of Theodosus, a common name. “Josephus gives an account of four men named Simon who followed each other within forty years, and of three named Judas within ten years, who were all instigators of rebellion” (Hackett). If the same Theudas is meant, then either Josephus or Luke (Gamaliel) has the wrong historical order. In that case one will credit Luke or Josephus according to his estimate of the two as reliable historians.
To be somebody ( ). Indirect assertion with the infinitive and the accusative of general reference () and , predicate accusative. could be “anybody” or “somebody” according to context, clearly “somebody” of importance here.
Joined themselves (). Correct text and not (Textus Receptus). First aorist passive indicative of , old verb to lean towards, to incline towards. Here only in the N.T.
Was slain (). First aorist passive of (cf. verse 33).
Obeyed (). Imperfect middle, kept on obeying.
Were dispersed (). First aorist passive indicative (effective aorist) of , old verb to dissolve, to go to pieces. Here only in the N.T.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Joined themselves [] . The best texts read prosekliqh, were inclined; i e., leaned to, or took sides with.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1 ) “For before these days rose up Theudas:‘(pro gar touton ton hemeron aneste Theudas) “For before these days (of the witness of the apostles) there stood up Theudas,” as a public figure, but beyond this not identified.
2) “Boasting himself to be somebody;” (legon einai tina heauton) “Advertising himself to be (as) someone (special),” causing a civil and religious commotion, much as the false prophets described, 2Pe 2:1-2; 2Pe 2:17-19; Jud 1:4; Jud 1:10; Jud 1:12-13.
3) “To whom a number of men,” (ho andron arithmos) “To whom numerous men of responsible age,” attached themselves.
4) “About four hundred joined themselves:” (hos tetra kosin proseklithe) About four hundred were aligned or attached,” as if to follow with allegiance, Joh 5:43.
5) “Who was slain; (hos anerethe) “Who was killed,” whether in a riot or by established civil order is not clear.
6) “And all, as many as obeyed him,” (kai pantes hossi epeithonto auto) “And all, even as many as were persuaded to follow or give heed to him,” obeyed his leadership in rebellion against the established order of law.
7) “Were scattered and brought to nought,” (dieluthesan kai egeneto eis ouden) “Were dispersed, (scattered) and came to not one thing,” his boasting or self-promotion of himself to be somebody special, was vain or empty, like clouds and wind without rain, Pro 25:14; 2Pe 2:17; Jud 1:12.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
36. There arose one Theudas. If we credit Josephus, Gamaliel altereth in this place the true course of the history. For he reporteth that Judas Gaulanites, who was born in Gamala, at such time as Quirinius, or Cyrenius, was proconsul, did raise a tumult with his adherents, because they would not have their goods taxed; (288) and that Theudas, at such time as Cuspius Fadus was procurator, did boast that he was a prophet of God. And Fadus was sent into Judea by Claudius Caesar. The former history is recorded in the Eighteenth Book of Antiquities; and the other in the Twentieth. But I think that when Luke saith, After him was there one Judas, he meant not to note the course of time, as if he were the latter; but forasmuch as Gamaliel brought in two like examples, he might put the one in place of the other, (289) without having respect of time. Therefore the word post is as much as moreover, or besides.
Furthermore, even these examples wherewith Gamaliel confirmeth his opinion do not sufficiently agree with the present cause. For, because they did not by and by resist Judas, that sedition which he had raised was the occasion of many murders, and at length he was vanquished with hand and weapon. Theudas also had done far more hurt, unless he had been put to flight in time by Cuspius Fadus. But Gamaliel hath respect unto this alone, that men have unlucky success when as they advance themselves un-advisedly; and that cometh to pass by the just judgment of God. But because the priests refuse to hearken when God giveth them good counsel, they are worthy to be made amazed by man with frivolous reasons, wavering hither and thither through foolish perplexity. Furthermore, if we cast the time, we shall find that it was twelve years at least after the death of Christ before the apostles were beaten. For unto the five years which remained of the government of Tiberius, we must add three and a half which Caligula reigned. Fadus was not sent by Claudius into Judea before the second or third year of his reign. Gamaliel rehearsed not the act within a day or two after. Therefore that space of time is complete whereof I spake. Wherefore the constancy of the apostles was the more excellent, who, though they be so evil rewarded for those long pains which they had endured, yet are they not discouraged, neither do they cease to hold on as they had begun.
That he was some great man. Some books (290) have, Saying that he was somebody; yet both carry one sense. For he boasted that he was such a prophet that he could dry up Jordan, that those which were with him might go over dry foot. Nevertheless, we see how far Gamaliel is from true knowledge, who compareth the holy ministers of Christ unto seducers and robbers; although he mitigateth his words afterward, and, inclining toward the better part, leaveth it indifferent whether they have taken this matter in hand, having God for their author or no. Yet he speaketh doubtfully, because he provideth (291) only for quietness, all inquiry being set apart. This is only to be allowed (292) in his speech, that he feareth [deterreth] the wicked from wicked boldness, because there is nothing more to be feared than to strive against God.
(288) “ Ne census ageretur,” to prevent a census from being taken.
(289) “ Promiscue miscere,” mix promiscuously, confound the two.
(290) “ Codices,” manuscripts.
(291) “ Consulit,” consulteth.
(292) “ Probandum,” to be approved.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(36) Before these days rose up Theudas.An insurrection, headed by a leader of this name, is mentioned by Josephus (Ant. xx. 5, 1). He, however, places it, not before the taxingi.e., circ. A.D. 6but in the reign of Claudius, and under the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus, A.D. 44, ten or twelve years after this speech of Gamaliels. The Theudas of whom he speaks claimed to be a prophet, and promised to lead his followers across the Jordan. Fadus sent a troop of horse against him, and he was taken and beheaded. It has accordingly been inferred by some critics that we have here a blunder so portentous as to prove that the speech was made up long years after its alleged date by a writer ignorant of history, that the whole narrative of this part of the Acts is accordingly untrustworthy, and that the book requires to be sifted throughout, with a suspicious caution. On the other side, it is urged (1) that the circumstances of the two cases are not the same, Josephus speaking of a very great multitude as following his Theudas, while Gamaliel distinctly fixes the number of adherents at about four hundred; (2) that the name Theudas, whether considered as a form of the Aramaic name Thaddus (see Note on Mat. 10:3), or the Greek Theodorus, was common enough to make it probable that there had been more than one rebel of that name; (3) that Josephus mentions no less than three insurrections of this type as occurring shortly after the death of Herod the Great (Ant. xvii. 10)one headed by Judas (a name which appears from Mat. 10:3, Luk. 6:16, to have been interchangeable with Thaddaeus or Theudas), the head of a band of robbers who seized upon the fortress of Sepphoris; one by Simon, previously a slave of Herods, who proclaimed himself king and burnt Herods palaces at Jericho and elsewhere; one by Athronges and four brothers, each of whom ruled over a band, more or less numerous, of his ownand adds further, that besides these there were numerous pretenders to the name of king, who murdered and robbed at large, and that one of these may well have been identical with the Theudas of whom Gamaliel speaks; (4) that it is hardly conceivable that a writer of St. Lukes culture and general accuracy, writing in the reign of Nero, could have been guilty of such inaccuracy as that imputed to him, still less that such a mistake should have been made by any author writing after Josephuss history was in the hands of men. A writer in the reign of Henry VIII. would hardly have inverted the order of Wat Tyler and Jack Cade. The description given by Gamaliel, saying that he was some onei.e., some great personageagrees with the sufficiently vague account given by Josephus of the leaders of the revolts on the death of Herod, especially, perhaps, with that of Simon (who may have taken the name of Theudas as an alias to conceal his servile origin) of whom he says that he thought himself more worthy than any other of kingly power.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
36. Theudas Josephus relates an account of a Theudas which precisely agrees with this statement of Gamaliel, but which happened a number of years after this speech was made. Hence writers have charged a contradiction between the two. But surely Josephus’ statement that a Theudas of this sort existed after this speech does not contradict the assertion that a Theudas existed with similar fortunes a good while before. The fact that an Adams was American President in 1827 who was born in New England, was American minister in Europe before he was president, and, unlike the presidents of his times, served but a single term, being defeated by a Democratic successor, does not disprove that there was a President Adams in 1798 of whom precisely the same facts were true. Theudas was a very common name among the Jews, and the rise and destruction of small insurgents was a very common fact. Dr. Wordsworth says that there were two apostles named Judas and two James; and there were three eminent rabbies named Gamaliel. Josephus’ Theudas was very probably a descendant of an earlier Theudas, whose dispersed followers he rallied and sustained his ancestor’s fame. Inasmuch as the name Theudas, being a contraction of Theodorus, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew name Matthew. Dr. Beard, in Kitto’s “Cyclopaedia,” identifies Gamaliel’s Theudas with an insurgent Matthew who lived in the time of Herod. This Matthew rallied a host of soldiers in Jerusalem to oppose idolatry. Upon a false rumour of Herod’s death he attempted to remove certain Roman eagles placed by Herod over the great gate of the temple; but his followers were dispersed, and Matthew was burnt.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“For before these days rose up Theudas, giving himself out to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves, who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed, and came to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the enrolment, and drew away some of the people after him. He also perished, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad.”
He reminded them of two previous examples of men who had proclaimed that they were acting in the name of God and gave out themselves to be ‘somebody’, the one Theudas, the other Judas of Galilee. It appears that Theudas had gathered around him four hundred followers. But they were soon dispersed and came to nothing.
Theudas was a common name in Palestine, and there is no reason at all, apart from the coincidence of the name, to see him as the same Theudas of whom Josephus wrote, who appeared some thirty years later, of whom Josephus said very different things, i.e. that as a wonderworker he had gathered together a ‘very great multitude’ of followers, and approached the Jordan promising that its waters would divide in front of them and they would walk over dryshod, only for his host to be slaughtered. Gamaliel’s Theudas may well indeed have been the grandfather of this one, for grandsons often received the names of their grandfathers, and insurrection tended to run in families. A young man brought up in an atmosphere of reverence for his grandfather, hatred of the Romans and belief that God would one day exercise supernatural powers through His instruments, might well have conceived such a mad scheme. They may, however, have been unrelated.
Judas the Galilean was another insurrectionist (they were fairly common among the Jews around that time) who had rebelled against the Roman’s first tax census in 6 AD, and was defeated by Quirinius, the legate of Syria. This was a very different census from the one that took place at the time of Jesus’ birth which was probably a requirement for submission to the emperor on the twenty fifth anniversary of his reign in around 3 BC. He fanatically declared that as God was the King of Israel, tribute was only due to Him, and that to pay it to Rome was blasphemy.
In both cases, Gamaliel pointed out, they had failed and their followers had been severely dealt with so that their influence had become ineffective. That was in fact only partly true for the simmering anger continued and the later Zealots would look back to Judas the Galilean as their role model.
Luke has a purpose in giving us the details of Gamaliel’s speech which was given ‘in camera’. H wants it to be quite clear to his readers that Jesus is not at all like Theudas and Judas the Galilean, for His aims and purposes are totally different. Rather than being against Rome, He has a message to be proclaimed in Rome.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 5:36. Rose up Theudas, boasting himself, &c. Pretending to somewhat extraordinary. Heylin. Theudas was a very common name among the Jews; the person therefore here mentioned most probably was one among the many leaders who, as Josephus informs us, took up arms in defence of the public liberties, when the grand enrolment and taxation were made by Cyrenius, in the days of Archelaus: for that this was not the Theudas mentioned by Josephus under the character of a false prophet (who drew a great number of people after him, with a promise of dividing Jordan before them, but was defeated, andbeheaded, most of his followers being also slain or imprisoned) is plain from hence, that he appeared when Fadus was procurator of Judea; that is, according to the best calculations, at least ten years after this was spoken. The Theudas here mentioned seems to have been supported by smaller numbers than the second of that name: but, like that second, he perished in the attempt. As his followers were dispersed, and not slaughtered, like those of the second Theudas, survivors might nottalk much of him, and Josephus might not think it worth his while to make a particularmention of him, though his history might be well known to Gamaliel, and the people of those times. This account of Theudas renders all the criticisms upon the beginning of the next verse entirely useless. In the days of the taxing might be read, In those days of the taxation, or enrolment; meaning those same days, or at the same period of time, when Theudas appeared. The reader will find in Josephus’s 18th book of his Antiquities, an account of Judas of Galilee. See also the notes on Mat 22:16; Mat 24:3-4. Luk 2:2.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 5:36 . ] gives the reason [173] for the warning contained in Act 5:35 . In proof that they should not proceed rashly, Gamaliel reminds them of two instances from contemporary history (Act 5:36-37 ), when fanatical deceivers of the people (without any interference of the Sanhedrim) were overthrown by their own work. Therefore there should be no interference with the apostles (Act 5:38 ); for their work, if it should be of men, would not escape destruction; but if it should be of God, it would not be possible to overthrow it.
.] i.e. not long ago . , , , Chrysostom. Comp. Act 21:38 . Yet the expression, which here stands simply in contrast to ancient incidents (which do not lie within the experience of the generation), is not to be pressed; for Gamaliel goes back withal to the time before the census of Quirinus .
] Joseph. Antt. xx. 5.1, informs us that under the procurator Cuspius Fadus (not before A.D. 44; see Anger, de temp. rat. p. 44) an insurgent chief Theudas gave himself out to be a prophet, and obtained many adherents. But Fadus fell on the insurgents with his cavalry; they were either slain or taken prisoners, and Theudas himself was beheaded by the horsemen. This narrative suits our passage exactly as regards substance , but does not correspond as regards date . For the Theudas of Josephus lived under Claudius , and Tiberius Alexander succeeded Cuspius Fadus about A.D. 46; whereas Gamaliel’s speech occurred about ten years earlier, in the reign of Tiberius. Very many (Origen, c. Cels. i. 6, Scaliger, Casaubon, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Hammond, Wolf, Bengel, Heumann, Krebs, Lardner, Morus, Rosenmller, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Guericke, Anger, Olshausen, Ebrard) therefore suppose that it is not the Theudas of Josephus who is here meant, but some other insurgent chief or robber-captain acting a religious part, [174] who has remained unknown to history, but who emerged in the turbulent times either of the later years of Herod the Great or soon after his death. This certainly removes all difficulties, but in what a violent manner! especially as the name was by no means so common as to make the supposition of two men of that name, with the same enterprise and the same fate, appear probable, or indeed, in the absence of more precise historical warrant, otherwise than rash, seeing that elsewhere historical mistakes occur in Luke (comp. Act 4:6 ; Luk 2:1-2 ). Besides, it is antecedently improbable that tradition should not have adduced an admonitory example thoroughly striking , from a historical point of view, such as was that of Judas the Galilean. But the attempts to discover in our Theudas one mentioned by Josephus under a different name (Wieseler, Synops. p. 103 ff., and Baumgarten, also Khler in Herzog’s Encykl. XVI. p. 40 f, holding it to refer to the scribe Matthias in Joseph. Bell. i. 33. 2, Antt. xvii. 6; Sonntag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 638 ff., and Ewald, to the insurgent Simon in Joseph. Bell. ii. 4. 2, Antt. xvii. 10. 6; Zuschlag in the monograph Theudas, Anfhrer eines 750. in Palst. erregten Aufstandes , Cassel 1849, taking it to be the Theudion of Joseph. Antt. xvii. 4, who took an active part in the Idumean rising after the death of Herod the Great), amount only to assumptions incapable of proof, and are nevertheless under the necessity of leaving the difference of names unaccounted for. But inasmuch as, if the Theudas in our passage is conceived as the same with the Theudas mentioned by Josephus, the error cannot be sought on the side of Josephus (Baronius, Reland, Michaelis, Jahn, Archol . II. 2, 127); as, on the contrary, the exactness of the narrative of Josephus secures at any rate the decision in its favour for chronological accuracy over against Luke; there thus remains nothing but to assume that Luke or, in the first instance, his source has, in the reproduction of the speech before us, put into the mouth of Gamaliel a proleptic mistake . This might occur the more easily, as the speech may have been given simply from tradition. And the tradition which had correctly preserved one event adduced by Gamaliel (the destruction of Judas the Galilean), was easily amplified by an anachronistic addition of another. If Luke himself composed the speech in accordance with tradition, the error is in his case the more easily explained, since he wrote the Acts so long after the insurrection of Theudas, in fact, after the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth, that the chronological error, easy in itself, may here occasion the less surprise, for he was not a Jew, and he had been for many years occupied with efforts of quite another kind than the keeping freshly in mind the chronological position of one of the many passing enthusiastic attempts at insurrection. It has been explained as a proleptic error by Valesius, ad Euseb. H. E. ii. 11, Lud. Cappellus, Wetstein, Ottius, Spicileg. p. 258, Eichhorn, Credner, de Wette, Neander, Bleek, Holtzmann, Keim, [175] as also by Baur and Zeller, who, however, urge this error as an argument against the historical truth of the entire speech. Olshausen considers himself prevented from assenting to the idea of a historical mistake, because Luke must have committed a double mistake, for, first, he would have made Gamaliel name a man who did not live till after him; and, secondly, he would have put Judas , who appeared under Augustus, as subsequent to Theudas , who lived under Claudius. But the whole mistake amounts to the simple error, that Luke conceived that Theudas had played his part already before the census of Quirinius , and accordingly he could not but place him before Judas. [176]
] giving out himself ( , in which consists the arrogance , the self-exaltation ; “character falsae doctrinae,” Bengel) for one of peculiar importance: , Joseph. Antt. xx. 5. 1. On , eximius quidam (the opposite
Valckenaer, ad Herod. iii. 140), see Wetstein in loc.; Winer, p. 160 [E. T. 213]; Dissen, ad Pind. Pyth. viii. 95, p. 299.
] to whom leaned , i.e. adhered, took his side: , Josephus, l.c. Comp. Polyb. iv. 51. 5; also , Polyb. vi. l0. 10, v. 51. 8.
] ad nihilum redacti sunt . See Schleusner, Thes. IV. p. 140. They were, according to Josephus, l.c. , broken up ( ) by the cavalry of Fadus, and partly killed, partly taken prisoners.
The two relative sentences . and are designed to bring out emphatically the contrast. Comp. Act 4:10 .
[173] Erasmus well paraphrases it “Ex praeteritis sumite consilium, quid in futurum oporteat decernere.”
[174] So also Gerlach, d. Rmischen Statthalt. p. 70, not without a certain irritation towards me, which I regret, as it contributes nothing to the settlement of the question.
[175] According to Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 94, the difficulty between Luke and Josephus remains “somewhat in suspense.” Yet he inclines to the assumption of an earlier Theudas, according to the hypothesis of Wieseler. According to this hypothesis, the Greek name (see Wetstein) Theudas (= = ), preserved still on coins in Mionnet, must be regarded as the Greek form of the name . But why should Gamaliel or Luke not have retained the name Matthias? Or what could induce Josephus to put Matthias instead of Theudas? especially as the name was not strange in Hebrew (Schoettg. p. 423), and Josephus himself mentions the later insurgent by no other name.
[176] Entirely mistaken is the even in a linguistic point of view erroneous interpretation of (ver. 37) by Calvin, Wetstein, and others, that it denotes not temporis ordinem , but, generally, insuper or praeterea .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
Ver. 36. Rose up Theudas ] See Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 20; xvii. 12.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
36 .] A great chronological difficulty arises here. Josephus relates, Antt. xx. 5.1, , , . . , , , , . But this was in the reign of Claudius, not before the year A.D. 44; and consequently at least twelve years after this speech of Gamaliel’s. On this difficulty I will remark, that we are plainly in no position (setting all other considerations aside) to charge St. Luke with having put into the mouth of Gamaliel words which he could not have uttered. For Josephus himself, speaking of a time which would accord very well with that referred to by Gamaliel, viz. the time when Archelaus went to Rome to be confirmed in the kingdom, says, , . And among these there may well have been an impostor of this name. But all attempts to identify Theudas with any other leader of outbreaks mentioned by Josephus have failed to convince any one except their propounders: e.g. that cited in Biscoe from Usher, Ann., p. 797, who supposes him the same as Judas the robber, son of Ezechias, Jos. Antt. xvii. 10. 5, of Sonntag, who tries to identify him with Simon, mentioned Jos. Antt. xvii. 10. 6; B. J. ii. 4. 2, and of Wieseler, who would have us believe him the same with Matthias , Antt. xvii. 6. 2, 4. The assumption of Josephus having misplaced his Theudas is perhaps improbable; but by no means impossible , in a historian teeming with inaccuracies . (See this abundantly demonstrated in an article on ‘the Bible and Josephus,’ in the Journal of Sacred Literature for Oct. 1850.) All we can say is, that such impostors were too frequent, for any one to be able to say that there was not one of this name (a name by no means uncommon, see Cicero ad divers. vi. 10, and Grot. h. 1.) at the time specified. It is exceedingly improbable, considering the time and circumstances of the writing of the Acts, and the evident supervision of them by St. Paul, the pupil of Gamaliel, that a gross historical mistake should have been here put into his mouth.
The of our text is curiously related to the of Josephus.
hardly agrees with the of Josephus above, and confirms the idea that different events are pointed at in the two accounts. But the Jewish historian speaks very widely about such matters: see note on ch. Act 21:38 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 5:36 . : Gamaliel appeals to the experience of the past the phrase is placed first with emphasis, cf. Act 21:38 ; on St. Luke’s fondness for phrases with see above, and Friedrich, pp. 9, 89. But whilst Gamaliel appeals to the past, his appeal is not to a remote but to a near past which was still fresh in the memories of his generation, perhaps because, as St. Chrysostom urges, such recent examples . , cf. Act 7:18 , like the Hebrew , and so constantly in LXX, Exo 1:8 , Deu 13:1 ; Deu 34:10 , Jdg 2:10 ; Jdg 4:9 ; Jdg 5:7 , etc. : St. Luke evidently places Theudas before Judas. But a difficulty arises from the fact that the only Theudas of this period known to us is placed by Josephus in the reign of Claudius, about the year 44, 45. He gave himself out as a false prophet, gathered round him “a great part of the people,” and persuaded them to follow him to the Jordan with a promise that its waters should miraculously divide before him as in the days of Moses. But the Roman procurator, Cuspius Fadus, sent a troop of horse to meet him, some of his followers were slain, others taken captive, whilst he himself was made prisoner and beheaded, and his head sent to Jerusalem, Jos., Ant. , xxx., 5, 1. But a serious chronological discrepancy must be faced if the Theudas of Josephus is the Theudas of St. Luke. Gamaliel speaks of a Theudas who arose before the days of the enrolment, R.V., which marked the attempt of Judas, i.e. , about 6 7 A.D. But are they the same? As early as the days of Origen their identity was denied ( c. Cels. , i., 57), see “Acts,” B.D. 2 , Bishop Lightfoot, p. 40, and in comparing the two accounts in Josephus and Acts there is no close resemblance beyond the name, see Nsgen, in loco , and Belser, Theol. Quartalschrift , i., p. 70 (1896). St. Luke speaks definitely of 400 followers; Josephus evidently considers that the pretender was much more successful, so far as numbers were concerned, for he writes: . These and similar discrepancies are also well insisted upon by Zahn in his recent Introduction , ii., 416, 417 (1899), and his own conclusion is that only such ordinary words are common to the two accounts as Luke, ; Jos., ; Luke, ; Jos., ; and that we cannot get beyond the bounds of possibility that the two authors refer to the same fact (on Zahn’s criticism of Krenkel’s view of the dependence of Luke on Josephus in the narrative, see u. s. ). In referring to the appearance of the many false Messiahs, such as the Theudas of Josephus, Ant. , xx., 5, 1, Dr. Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life , p. 66, remarks: “Of course this could not have been the Theudas of Act 5:36-37 , but both the name and the movement were not solitary in Israel at the time”; see also Ramsay, Was Christ born in Bethlehem? p. 259. And no testimony could be stronger than that of Josephus himself to the fact that at the time of the Advent Juda was full of tumults and seditions and pretenders of all kinds, Ant. , xvii., 10, 4, 8; B. J. , ii., 4, 1. The view has been maintained by many commentators that the Theudas of Josephus may reasonably be supposed to be one of the many false teachers and leaders mentioned by the Jewish historian and not always by name, who pandered to the feverish hopes of the people and gave themselves out as of kingly rank (so recently Belser, Felten, Page, Plumptre, Knabenbauer). The name Theudas contracted from Theodorus may not have been so common as that of Simon or Judas (although on the other hand, see Nsgen, Apostelgeschichte , p. 147) “Josephus describes four men bearing the name of Simon within forty years, and three that of Judas within ten years, all of whom were instigators of rebellion” but it was the Greek equivalent to several familiar Hebrew names, e.g. , Jonathan, Matthias; and Bishop Lightfoot allows that there is something to be said for Wieseler’s suggestion that on the ground of the name the Theudas here may be identified with Matthias, the son of Margalothus, an insurgent in the time of Herod, prominent in the pages of Josephus, Ant. , xvii., 6, 2 (see also Zckler on the whole question, Apostelgeschichte , p. 197, 2nd edit.). We must admit the objection of Wendt that this and other identifications of names and persons cannot be proved (and some of them certainly are very precarious, as Alford pointed out), but we cannot suppose that St. Luke could have made the gross blunder attributed to him in the face of his usual accuracy (see Blass, Acta Apostolorum , p. 90), or endorse with Schrer what he calls “the slight authority of the Acts in such matters” ( Jewish People , div. i., vol. ii., p. 169). If it is hardly possible that Josephus can have been mistaken, although some writers have held that it is by no means impossible that even here he may have been ( cf. Alford, Rendall, Belser, and compare the remarks of Zahn, ubi supra ), we may at least claim the same probability of freedom from error for St. Luke, “temporum bene memorem se scriptor monstrat: quo minus est probabile eum de Theuda tam graviter errasse quam plerique putant” (Blass), and see the recent remarks of Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem ? p. 252 ff. It cannot be said that some recent attempts at a solution of the difficulty are very promising; for whilst H. Holtzmann severely blames Blass for maintaining that some Christian had interpolated the name Theudas in the text of Josephus (see Blass, in loco , and p. xvi., edit. min.), he himself is prepared to endorse the view recently maintained amongst others by Clemen that the writer of Acts in his mention of Theudas gives us a vague but yet recognisable recollection of Jos., Ant. , xx., 5, 1; see in loco and Theol. Literaturzeitung , 3, 1896, and 13, 1897. B. Weiss thinks that the notorious difficulty may easily be got rid of by supposing that the reviser inserted the example of Theudas in the wrong place, Einleitung in das N. T. , p. 574. : of consequence, really “somebody,” cf. Act 8:9 (and R.V.); “ein grosser Mann,” Blass, Grammatik des N. G. , p. 76; so we have its opposite, , cf. instances in Wetstein in classical Greek; so in Latin quidam, aliquis , Juvenal, i., 74; Cicero, ad Atticum , iii., 15; and cf. also 1Co 3:7 , Gal 2:6 ; Gal 6:3 ; Viteau, Le Grec du N. T. , p. 148 (1893). And yet the jealous eye of the Pharisees was blind to the difference between such a man as Theudas, whom Gamaliel so contemptuously described, and the Apostles who sought not their own honour (Nsgen); cf. Vulgate, “dicens se esse aliquem,” so Rhem. and Wycl., “saying that he was somebody”. : better reading , a word not found elsewhere in N.T., cf. 2Ma 14:24 ; and so also in LXX, cf. Psa 39 (40):2, Symmachus; cf. Polyb., iv., 51, 5; so also ; for its further use see Clem. Rom., Cor [185] , xlvii., 4 ( ) , see above on “Theudas”. , see also on , Act 5:33 , often of violent death in Acts. The two clauses stand in sharp contrast the one emphasises the large number which joined Theudas, the other the fact that notwithstanding he was slain; cf. Act 4:10 . . . .: nowhere else in N.T., but its use is quite classical, cf. Thuc., ii., 12; Xen., Cyr., v., 5, 43; Polyb., iv., 2. Blass remarks that the whole phrase “apte de secta qu paullatim dilabitur, minus apte de multitudine per vim disjecta”. : phrase only here in N.T. ( cf. Act 19:27 ), but see in LXX, Job 24:25 , Isa 40:17 , Wis 3:17 ; Wisdom 20:16. in LXX and also in classics; in N.T. cf. Luk 13:19 ; Luk 20:17 , Act 4:11 , and cf. 1Th 3:5 . In the first passage it is Hebraistic; in the passage before us and in 1 Thess. the phrases are quite possibly Greek, cf. especially Simcox, Language of the N. T. , p. 143. The phrase is more frequent in St. Luke’s writings than in any other books of the N.T., except the Apocalypse.
[185] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Theudas. The name is not uncommon in the Talmud.
boasting, &c. = saying that he was.
somebody. Greek. tis. App-123. Figure of speech Tapeinosis. App-6.
joined themselves. Greek. proskollaomai. Only here, Mat 19:5. Mar 10:7. Eph 5:31. Compare Act 5:13.
obeyed. App-150.
scattered. Greek. dialuo Only here. A medical word.
brought. Literally came to be.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
36.] A great chronological difficulty arises here. Josephus relates, Antt. xx. 5.1, , , . . , , , , . But this was in the reign of Claudius, not before the year A.D. 44; and consequently at least twelve years after this speech of Gamaliels. On this difficulty I will remark, that we are plainly in no position (setting all other considerations aside) to charge St. Luke with having put into the mouth of Gamaliel words which he could not have uttered. For Josephus himself, speaking of a time which would accord very well with that referred to by Gamaliel, viz. the time when Archelaus went to Rome to be confirmed in the kingdom, says, , . And among these there may well have been an impostor of this name. But all attempts to identify Theudas with any other leader of outbreaks mentioned by Josephus have failed to convince any one except their propounders: e.g. that cited in Biscoe from Usher, Ann., p. 797, who supposes him the same as Judas the robber, son of Ezechias, Jos. Antt. xvii. 10. 5,-of Sonntag, who tries to identify him with Simon, mentioned Jos. Antt. xvii. 10. 6; B. J. ii. 4. 2,-and of Wieseler, who would have us believe him the same with Matthias , Antt. xvii. 6. 2, 4. The assumption of Josephus having misplaced his Theudas is perhaps improbable; but by no means impossible, in a historian teeming with inaccuracies. (See this abundantly demonstrated in an article on the Bible and Josephus, in the Journal of Sacred Literature for Oct. 1850.) All we can say is, that such impostors were too frequent, for any one to be able to say that there was not one of this name (a name by no means uncommon, see Cicero ad divers. vi. 10, and Grot. h. 1.) at the time specified. It is exceedingly improbable, considering the time and circumstances of the writing of the Acts, and the evident supervision of them by St. Paul, the pupil of Gamaliel, that a gross historical mistake should have been here put into his mouth.
The of our text is curiously related to the of Josephus.
hardly agrees with the of Josephus above, and confirms the idea that different events are pointed at in the two accounts. But the Jewish historian speaks very widely about such matters: see note on ch. Act 21:38.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 5:36. , before) It is an excellent way to support counsels by examples. These Gamaliel prudently puts first, and then adds the consequence to be inferred from them.-, himself) A characteristic of false teaching: ch. Act 8:9.- , to nought) Not merely their counsels, but themselves came to nought. How many wretched men have been led on to destruction by false teachers!
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
boasting: Act 8:9, Mat 24:24, 2Th 2:3-7, 2Pe 2:18, Jud 1:16, Rev 17:3, Rev 17:5
to whom: Act 21:38, 2Pe 2:2
obeyed: or, believed, Mat 24:26
Reciprocal: Mat 24:5 – in Mar 13:6 – and shall Luk 21:8 – for Joh 5:43 – if Joh 10:8 – came Act 20:30 – to draw Rom 1:30 – boasters 2Ti 3:2 – boasters
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6
Act 5:36. Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Bible Dictionary says the following about this Theudas: “A Jewish revolutionist in the reign of Augustus [Caesar] who instigated a political uprising in Palestine that came to an inglorious end.” We may also read the account of Josephus in his Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 5, Section 1, as follows: “Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator [agent] of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; 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; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem.” Some historians question whether this is the same Theudas as the one Luke writes about, while others say he is the same. All agree, however, that the account in Josephus is true, and we know it corresponds with the description as Gamaliel gave it.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 5:36. For before these days. That is, not long ago; so Chrysostom understands the words when he remarks, He does not speak of ancient records, though he might have done so, but of more recent histories, which are most powerful to induce belief. Gamaliels meaning is: This is by no means the first time wild enthusiasts have appeared amongst us; but as you will see from the instances I am going to cite, such men have invariably finished their course in utter defeat and shame. Still, though he is evidently arguing on the probability of the followers of Jesus turning out similar impostors, in Act 5:39 he just hints at the possibility of another issue.
Rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain. This is one of the so-called historical inaccuracies of the Acts. Josephus mentions (Antt. xx. 5,1) a Theudas who persuaded a great company of people that he was a prophet, to induce them to follow his lead. This impostor was defeated and executed by the troops of Fadus, the Procurator of Judea. Now this happened in the reign of Claudius, some ten or twelve years after this speech of Gamaliel.
The mistake of identifying the Theudas of Josephus with the Theudas instanced by the writer of the Acts, is probably in great measure owing to the mistake of Eusebius, who, forgetful of the dates, and misled by the similarity of the names, confuses the two; but on examination, the details of the two outbreaks are different, for Josephus speaks of a great company of people as following the (later) Theudas of Josephus, while the Theudas of Gamaliel seems to have had comparatively few adherents, about four hundred. The apparent discrepancy between the history of Josephus and the Acts is best explained by the supposition that two persons bearing the name of Theudas appeared as insurgents at different times. Josephus relates how, at the time referred to by Gamaliel (see note on Act 5:37), the land was overrun by insurgent bands under the leadership of fanatics. Some of the leaders he mentions by name, others he merely alludes to generally. One of these latter most probably was the Theudas mentioned by Gamaliel, selected by him for special notice, for some reasons unknown to us. The name was by no means an uncommon one, nor is there any improbability in supposing that one Theudas, an insurgent, should have appeared in the time of Augustus, and another fifty years later, when Claudius was reigning. Josephus writes, for instance, of four men named Simon, all leaders of insurrections within forty years, and of three insurgent chiefs named Simon within ten years. It cannot for one moment be conceded that in the speech of Gamaliel, reported by the author of the Acts, a grave historical error exists, considering that the whole writing of the Acts was evidently supervised by St. Paul, the pupil of Gamaliel.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 34
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
5:36 {14} For before these days rose up Theudas, {m} boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
(14) In matters of religion we must take good heed that we attempt nothing under a pretence of zeal to which we have not been called.
(m) To be of same fame.