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. (ASV)
In the speech of Gamaliel (Acts 5:36-37), the famous Pharisee supposedly made the remark about the uprising by Theudas. However this is a gross anachronism. The speech within Luke-Acts was set in the early thirties (circa 30-33 CE), since it was placed before the conversion of Paul (which happened only in Acts 9). Yet we know from Josephus's Antiquities (20:5:1-2) that this revolt happened during the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus, who took office only in 44 CE. This means that Luke had Gamaliel making a remark about the revolt by Theudas that, at that time, had yet to occur and will not happen for another ten years! It is quite obvious that Gamaliel could not have made that remark. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles: p186
Against the idea that the author of Acts is referring to a separate Theudas, it should be noted that he seems to have very close affinities with Josephus' writing and many scholars believe that if Josephus was not a source for Acts, they probably at least share common source materials. In this case, it is very incriminating that the author of Acts mentions not only Theudas but also Judas the Galilean and the Egyptian, though rearranging the order for his own agenda.
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.
Moved From Con
Reason For Move
The link is a claimed defense to the claimed error by Glenn Miller. It has been moved to Neutral for the following reasons:
1) The Pro claim is clear.
2) In General attempted Pros or Cons consisting only of a link are not allowed.
3) Glenn Miller in general is not an authority on Biblical Errancy by the standards of ErrancyWiki.
4) Every specific point that Miller addresses supports the Pro conclusion, that the same Theudas is intended.
Cure For Move
At a minimum a summary of an argument must be given here to achieve Con status and the argument can not be based exclusively on claimed uncertainty. I'm not sure if this is possible.
--JoeWallack 17:19, 24 August 2008 (EDT)