THEUDAS (Ocv5Ei s, Theoa'as), the leader of a popular tumult towards the close of the reign of Herod the Great, mentioned by Gamaliel in his temperate and conciliatory speech to the Sanhedrim (Acts v. 36). From the terms in which he is spoken of he appears to have been a religious im postor of high pretensions (Xerer, thud r eavrbv), to whom a small body of adherents (avapOiv aptO,Laes cla re-rpatroaltuv) closely attached themselves Orpocre ocoXX4817, rec. rpottexlan, A.B.), but who was ulti mately slain (dvviOn), and his party annihilated (476,01,TO els oirair). On comparing the scriptural narrative with the civil history of the time, as given by Josephus, a chronologital difficulty arises, which has been pressed to the utmost by a school of critics with whom it appears to be a first principle that wherever a discrepancy of statement exists the error must be on the side of the sacred writer, and who, in this instance, do not scruplg to charge St. Luke with a gross historical error. The facts are these :—No insurgent of the name of Theudas is mentioned by Josephus at the period to which Gamaliel must refer, but a religious impostor (767” rts civ0) is described by him as having raised a somewhat similar commotion in the reign of Claudius, when Cuspius Fadus was procurator of Judma—i.e. some ten or twelve years after the de livery of this speech, and therefore more than forty years later than the date fixed by the words of Ga maliel. Josephus's account of the matter (Antiq. xx. 5. 1) is, that this fanatic, laying claim to pro phetical powers, persuaded a very large body (riw irXe2o-rov tixXov) to follcw him to the Jordan with the assurance that the waters would divide before him as they had done before Elijah and Elisha in the days of old ; but being unexpectedly attacked by a squadron of cavalry sent out after him by Fadus, his followers were killed or taken prisoners, and the leader himself being taken was beheaded.
Now, if we are to regard it as certain that there was only one Jewish insurgent named Theudas, it follows that either St. Luke or Josephus must be guilty of a chronological blunder. The hypothesis that Josephus has misplaced Theudas, though not impossible, and maintained by Michaelis (Elul. in N. T. i. 63) and Jahn (Arehaol. ii. 2), is a way of cutting the knot which no unbiassed critic would desire to resort to. That the error is SL Luke's, though taken for gmnted by most modern Ger man critics (Eichhorn, De Wette, Credner, Meyer, Baur, etc.), is even more improbable when we take into account the great historical accuracy of his narrative, which closer researches are continu ally placing in a stronger light, and the (late of the publication of the Acts. Few things are less cre dible than that a careful author like St. Luke, writ ing within a few years' of the event, should have been betrayed into such a glaring historical mistake as antedating the insurrection of Theudas by nearly half a century. That he should have done this by an intentional pro/epsir, as is supposed by some (Vales. ad Eased. II. E. ii. r), is as completely at
variance with the simplicity and unartistic character of his narrative.
But 'without resorting to either of these violent methods, the difficulty may be solved with perfect satisfaction by the simple hypothesis of there having been two insurgents of-the same name. This, which has commended itself to such critics as Beza, Scaliger, Casaubon, and Bengel, in earlier times, and Olshausen, Winer, and Ebrard, in later days, is ably supported by Lardner (Credibility, vol. i. PP- 405-414), who remarks that 'it is not at all strange that there should be two impostors in Judxa of the saine name in the compass of forty years, and that they should come to the same end ; on the contrary, it is strange that any learned man should find this hard to believe.' The name Theudas was one of no unfrequent occurrence (Winer, R. W B. s. v.), while the fact that there were as many as three impostors of the name of Simon besides Simon Magus, and as many Judases, mentioned by Josephus in the space of about ten years, increases the probability that there may have been two named Theudas in the space of forty years. Moreover, the period to which Theudas is assigned by Gamaliel, the close of the reign of Herod—the insurrection of Judas the Galilman, before which he appeared, being fixed A.D. 6 or 7—was one fertile in popular commotions (grepa nupiaeopbflont ixonepa '100alav KareXciglave, Joseph. Antiq. xvii. 12.
; the whole of which, with a few exceptions, are passed over by Josephus without particularising their leaders, so that it need create little surprise that one in which so small a number were con cerned (Gamaliel's 400 can be hardly made to tally with Josephus's rXeia-ros ilxXos) should have been omitted by him, or spoken of in equally general terms. The preceding remarks will prepare us to acquiesce in the verdict of Jost (Geseh. der Isr. Anhang, p. 76), that scholars might well have spared the labour of seeking to identify two men, one of whom preceded the other by half a century.' Well-meant but not very successful attempts have been made to identify Theudas with one or other of the insurgents named by Josephus : such as that of—(i.) Sonntag (Stud. u. Ern'. 1837, p. 662), who seeks to prove that he was Herod's slave Simon, who set himself up for a king, and plun dered and burnt the royal palaces (Joseph. Antiq. xvii- io. 6 ; Bea jud. ii. 4. 2) ; or (a.) Wieseler (Chron. Symp. of Gospds, transL pp. go-92), who considers him to have been the same with Matthias the son of Margaloth (Matthias= rirlivz being the Hebrew form of ec6Soros=0Evaits), who hewed down the Roman eagle over the temple gate ; those of Usher (Ann. p. 797) or Zuschlag, wha identify him with—(3.) Judas the robber (Antiq. xvii. to. 5); or (4.) Theudion (Ibid. 4. 2). Such attempts arise from an unwillingness to acquiesce in the fragmentary character of the annals of the period, and are simply curious as efforts of inge nuity.—E. V.