What is the answer to the question? What does the evidence say?

The translation is mine. If you would like to see others, please click here:

Biblegateway.com.

Scripture:

Gamaliel, Saul’s / Paul’s mentor, is speaking to the Sanhedrin:

³⁵ He said to them, “Men of Israel, watch yourselves in regard to these men and what you are about to do! ³⁶ For some time ago Theudas, claiming to be somebody, followed by about 400 men, was killed, and everyone who was convinced by him was dispersed and came to nothing. ³⁷ After this, Judas the Galilean led the people in a revolt after him, during the census. He too perished, and everyone who was convinced by him was scattered. (Acts 5:35-37)

I include the insurgent Judas the Galilean in v. 37 because the commentators, below, use him as a reference or time marker.

Problem to be solved:

There appears, at first glance, to be a discrepancy in Luke and his account of Theudas. Gamaliel here, in about AD 34, refers to an uprising of Theudas, which according to Jewish historian Josephus, did not occur until about a decade later (AD 44). Critics say therefore that Luke cannot be trusted throughout his entire history.

Solutions:

Let’s refer to the commentators.

Richard N. Longenecker writes:

And despite the caustic comment about “special pleading,” usually leveled against the proposal, it remains true that (1) the Theudas whom Gamaliel cites in Acts 5:36 may have been one of many insurgent leaders who arose in Palestine at the time of Herod the Great’s death in 4 BC and Judas of the Galilean of AD 6, whereas Josephus focused an another Theudas of AD 44. Our problem with these verses, therefore, may result as much from our own ignorance of the situation as much from our own ignorance of the situation as from what we believe we know based on Josephus. (comment on vv. 36-37)

Bruce cuts the Gordian knot in this way:

The most reasonable conclusion is that Gamaliel was referring to another Theudas, who flourished before AD 6. While it is usually precarious to cut this kind of Gordian knot by assuming that the person in question is someone else of the same name, the assumption is acceptable here (1) because Luke is as credit-worthy a historian as Josephus, (2) because Theudas is a common name (it is a contraction of Theodorus, Theodotus, Theodosius, etc.), occurring also in inscriptions [Bruce references the inscriptions] … and (3) because there were many such risings under similar tumults and disorders in Judea after Herod’s death (4 BC), and this rising may have been one of these.

Bruce implies in his second explanation that Josephus could also be wrong, as some commentators believe.

Eckhard J. Schnabel says Josephus may be wrong or there was an earlier Theudas,  because there were numerous revolts after Herod the Great’s death in A. D. 4 or 6, much like Bruce and Longenecker argue. There were several revolts before A.D. 66 when Rome came to suppress them and after three-and-a-half years sacked Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70. Four rebels were named Simon and three men were named Judas (this latter name appears in Acts 5:37). So Josephus could very well have confused some of these rebels (p. 315).

David G. Peterson agrees with Longenecker and Bruce, namely that Theudas was one of many insurgent leaders around the time of Herod’s death and preceded Judas’s death. Josephus does not record this earlier Theudas (p. 225).

Darrell Bock agrees with the explanation that Theudas was earlier than the Theudas of A.D. 44-46, to whom Josephus referred. Josephus did not mention the earlier Theudas, who really existed (p. 250).

Craig S. Keener says that Theudas’s name is rare, so there was probably not an earlier Theudas. But I agree with Bruce and the contracted form of Theodotus or Theodorus (p. 215). Writing often switched back and forth between nicknames and contractions (think of Simon Peter or Cephas)

I. Howard Marshall agrees that Josephus got things wrong or more likely that Gamaliel is referring to another earlier Theudas. So Luke, using Gamaliel, is right (p. 129).

Conclusion:

This section will be short.

I count the above scholars on an equal footing or a higher one than skeptics like Bart Ehrman.

I agree with the scholars who say Josephus did not mention an earlier Theudas, but Luke through Gamaliel knew about him because there were many revolts at the time. Josephus does not know everything.

For the bibliography, please go here and scroll down to the very bottom:

Acts 5