Translation
Hide
Kirchengeschichte (BKV)
11. Kap. Der Betrüger Theudas.
In der Apostelgeschichte1 läßt Lukas den Gamaliel bei Untersuchung der Apostel sagen, zur erwähnten Zeit sei Theudas aufgetreten und habe sich als Autorität ausgegeben, doch sei er getötet und seien alle seine Anhänger zerstreut worden. Hören wir nun auch hierüber den Bericht des Josephus! In dem erwähnten Werke2 erzählt er wörtlich also: „Als Fadus Prokurator in Judäa war, überredete ein Betrüger, namens Theudas, eine sehr große Menge, ihm mit Hab und Gut an den Jordan zu folgen. Er gab sich nämlich als Prophet aus und behauptete, er werde mit seinem Worte den Fluß teilen und ihnen einen leichten Durchzug ermöglichen. Mit solchen Worten täuschte er viele. Doch Fadus ließ ihnen ihre törichte Freude nicht, sondern schickte gegen sie eine Schwadron Reiter, welche sie unerwartet überfiel und viele teils tötete, teils lebendig gefangennahm. Dem Theudas, der ebenfalls lebendig in ihre Hände fiel, schnitten sie den Kopf ab, um ihn nach Jerusalem zu bringen.“3 Im Anschluß an diesen Bericht erwähnt Josephus die Hungersnot unter Klaudius mit folgenden Worten.4
-
5, 34—36. ↩
-
Altert. 20, 97 f. ↩
-
Da der Prokurator Fadus erst 44 zur Regierung kam, fand der hier von Josephus erwähnte Aufstand des Theudas erst einige Jahre nach der Rede des Gamaliel statt. Wenn beide Schriftsteller, Lukas wie Josephus, wahrheitsgemäß berichten, muß der Theudasaufstand des Lukas also ein anderer gewesen sein als der des Josephus. Vgl. J. Feiten, „Die Apostelgeschichte“ (1892) S. 134 f.; A. Schlatter, „Zur Topographie und Geschichte Palästinas“ (1893) S. 129; M. Krenkel, „Josephus und Lucas“ (1894) S. 162 ff.; Th. Zahn, „Apostelgeschichte“ (1919) S. 208 ff. ↩
-
Altert. 20, 101. ↩
Translation
Hide
The Church History of Eusebius
Chapter XI.--The Impostor Theudas and his Followers.
1. Luke, in the Acts, introduces Gamaliel as saying, at the consultation which was held concerning the apostles, that at the time referred to, 1 "rose up Theudas boasting himself to be somebody; who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered." 2 Let us therefore add the account of Josephus concerning this man. He records in the work mentioned just above, the following circumstances: 3
2. "While Fadus was procurator of Judea 4 a certain impostor called Theudas 5 persuaded a very great multitude to take their possessions and follow him to the river Jordan. For he said that he was a prophet, and that the river should be divided at his command, and afford them an easy passage.
3. And with these words he deceived many. But Fadus did not permit them to enjoy their folly, but sent a troop of horsemen against them, who fell upon them unexpectedly and slew many of them and took many others alive, while they took Theudas himself captive, and cut off his head and carried it to Jerusalem." Besides this he also makes mention of the famine, which took place in the reign of Claudius, in the following words.
-
kata ton deloumenon chronon, i.e. about the time of Agrippa's death. But Luke writes pro gar touton ton hemeron, "Before these days." ↩
-
Acts v. 36. ↩
-
Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 1. ↩
-
About 44 a.d. See above, chap. 8, note 2. ↩
-
There is a chronological difficulty in connection with this Theudas which has caused much dispute. The Theudas mentioned by Josephus arose in the time of Claudius; but the Theudas referred to by Gamaliel in the Acts must have lived many years before that. Various solutions of greater or less plausibility have been offered, almost any one of which is possible, and abundantly sufficient to account for the alleged discrepancy, though none can be proved to be true. Compare Wieseler's Chron. des ap. Zeitalters, p. 138, note 1; Ewald's Gesch. des Jüdischen Volkes, Bd. VI. p. 532; Jost's Gesch. der Israeliten, Bd. II. Anhang, p. 86; and the various commentaries on the Acts in loco. A question of more importance for us, in the present instance, is as to Eusebius' conduct in the case. He identifies the Theudas of Luke with the Theudas of Josephus,--an identification which is impossible, if both accounts are accepted as trustworthy. Eusebius has consequently been accused of an intentional perversion of facts for the sake of promoting the credibility of Luke's accounts. But a protest must again be entered against such grave imputations upon the honesty of Eusebius. A man with a very small allowance of common sense would certainly not have been so foolish as consciously to involve himself in such a glaring anachronism--an anachronism which every reader had the means of exposing--for the sake of making a point in confirmation of the narrative of Luke. Had he been conscious of the discrepancy, he would certainly have endeavored to reconcile the two accounts, and it would not have required a great amount of ingenuity or research to discover in the pages of Josephus himself a sufficiently plausible reconciliation. The only reasonable explanation of Eusebius' anachronism is his carelessness, which caused him to fall into many blunders as bad as the present, especially in questions of chronology. He read, in the Acts, of Theudas; he read, in Josephus, of a similar character of the same name; he identified the two hastily, and without a thought of any chronological difficulty in the case. He quotes the passage from the Acts very freely, and possibly without recollecting that it occurs several chapters before the account of the famine and of the other events which happened in the time of Claudius. ↩