Charles Ellicott Commentary Acts 5:36

"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." — Acts 5:36 (ASV)

Before these days rose up Theudas. An insurrection, headed by a leader of this name, is mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 20.5.1). He, however, places it not “before the taxing”—that is, circa A.D. 6—but in the reign of Claudius, and under the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus, A.D. 44, ten or twelve years after this speech of Gamaliel’s.

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 significant blunder, supposedly proving that the speech was fabricated long years after its supposed date by a writer ignorant of history. They argue that this implies the whole narrative of this part of Acts is untrustworthy and that the book requires to be examined thoroughly with suspicious caution.

On the other side, it is urged:

1. That the circumstances of the two cases are not the same: Josephus speaks 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 Thaddaeus (see Note on Matthew 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 at least three insurrections of this type occurring shortly after the death of Herod the Great (Ant. 17.10). One was headed by Judas (a name which appears from Matthew 10:3 and Luke 6:16 to have been interchangeable with Thaddaeus or Theudas), the leader of a band of robbers who seized the fortress of Sepphoris. Another was led by Simon, previously a slave of Herod’s, who proclaimed himself king and burned Herod’s palaces at Jericho and elsewhere. A third was by Athronges and his four brothers, each of whom ruled over his own band, of varying size. Josephus further adds that, besides these, there were numerous pretenders to the title of king who murdered and robbed freely, and that one of these could well have been identical with the Theudas of whom Gamaliel speaks.
4. That it is hardly conceivable that a writer of St. Luke’s culture and general accuracy, writing in the reign of Nero, could have been guilty of such an inaccuracy as that attributed to him. It is even less conceivable that such a mistake should have been made by any author writing after Josephus’s history was available. 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 one—that is, some great personage—agrees with the sufficiently vague account given by Josephus of the leaders of the revolts on the death of Herod. This is especially true, perhaps, concerning Simon (who may have taken the name of Theudas as an alias to conceal his slave origin), of whom Josephus says that “he thought himself more worthy than any other” of kingly power.