1848.] Alleged Anachronism in Acts 5: 36. 409 Lîtâny. From Ba'albek to the sea its direct course is nearest 55 geographical miles. It flows at first along the alluvial valley; then breaks through the southern spurs of Lebanon by a deep chasm for about 20 miles, much of the way over a rocky bed and with a rushing and foaming stream; and at last flows to the sea with many windings through a broad low tract of meadow land. If now for this 20 miles of chasm, we assume an average fall in the mile of 100 feet, or 2000 feet in all, (which is a very large allowance, greater indeed than the rate of descent at the Little Falls of the Mohawk,) there yet remains of the elevation at Ba'albek (3729 English feet) no less than 1729 feet to be distributed along the rest of the course, or 35 geographical miles. This gives an average fall of very nearly 50 feet in a mile, in a course mostly along alluvial vallies. This result, therefore, goes strongly to confirm that found above in the case of the Orontes; and both together would seem to afford decisive proof, that the reported elevation of the Bŭkâ'a must be greatly exaggerated. Let us hope that public attention may be called to the various points referred to in this paper; and that those who have it in their power, will speedily cause these questions to be put at rest forever. ARTICLE II. ALLEGED ANACHRONISM IN ACTS 5: 36 IN RELATION TO THE SEDITION OF THEUDAS. Translated from the German by H. B. Hackett, Professor in Newton Theol. Institution, [INTRODUCTORY NOTE. The original Article is contained in the "Theologische Studien und Kritiken,” edited by Ullmann and Umbreit; Jahrgang, 1837, drittes Heft, p. 622 sq. The title there is—THEUDAs, der AufruehRER, Apstlg. 5:36. Von DR. FRIEDRICH SONNTAG, Grossherzoglich Badischem Kirchen-und Ministerialrathe. In the translation the object has been to convey faithfully the sense of the original, but without being bound by the form of the German sentences.-TR.] § 1. THE anachronism charged on Luke, which forms the subject of the present investigation, occurs in the speech of Gamaliel delivered before the Jewish Sanhedrim, as recorded in Acts 5: 35-39. The apostles, among whom Peter appears as specially prominent, stood VOL. V. No. 19. 35 arraigned before this body on account of the courageous testimony which they had borne to the resurrection of Christ, and their death was now demanded by many of the members as the penalty of their offence. Under these circumstances Gamaliel, so revered for his personal character and learning, arose and admonished his associates not to proceed with such rigor, but to release the accused without punishment. Belonging to the party of the Pharisees, and entertaining fully their belief of a divine fatality, everywhere and always active in the concerns of men, he remarked to the assembly that if the undertaking of the apostles was a human affair, it would not stand; but, on the other hand, if founded in the purposes of God, that it could not be overthrown. To enforce this advice, he reminded them of two insurrectionists who had formerly risen up among the people before the apostles appeared, as promulgators of the gospel, but who had perished and their schemes with them. "Before these days," says the speaker, "arose Theudas, saying that himself was some one of importance, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves; who was slain, and all those who obeyed him were dispersed, and came to nothing. After this one arose Judas the Galilean, in the days of the taxing, and drew away many people after him; and he also, and all who obeyed him, were scattered." From these words of Gamaliel we perceive, in the first place, that the Theudas named by him, who appeared at the head of about four hundred men, was an insurrectionist. Since men only are expressly mentioned who attached themselves to him, we have reason to infer that Theudas was not a person who merely sought to lead the people astray by false doctrine, but that he endeavored, at the head of his party, to accomplish his designs by violence. So too, we must conclude from the language of Gamaliel, that this Theudas belonged to the number of insurgents at that time, who were specially noted. With this agrees also the circumstance that Gamaliel classes him with Judas the Galilean, in respect to whom, we learn from Josephus, that soon after Archelaus2 was deposed, in the year 759 from the foundation of Rome, or the year 6 of the Christian era, he instigated a powerful rebellion against the Romans, at the time of the assessment then taken by command of the emperor Augustus. Besides, it is not to be supposed that when the speaker wished to call attention to the certainty of the failure of enterprises undertaken rashly and in opposition to the divine plan, and in this connection to adduce Arch. L. 18, c. 8, § 1. De Bel. Jud. L. 2, c. 8, § 1. 2 According to Dio Cassius, L. 55, c. 27. p. 801, ed. Reimar. 1848.] Theudas as described by Gamaliel. 411 examples of revolutionists who had failed in their attempts, he would select these examples from the number of the less noted instances of such defeat. On the contrary, it lies in the nature of the case, that with this object in view, he would remind his hearers of individuals who had once rendered themselves notorious, and excited great expectation or great apprehension. We ought not to overlook also the fact, that Gamaliel attaches to the Theudas mentioned by him, the epithet o Taliałos, and distinguishes the time in which he appeared, still more particularly by the words ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς ἀπογραφῆς, but mentions the Theudas likewise adduced by him without any nearer designation. Manifestly, Gamaliel supposed the entire assembly addressed by him to be familiar with the case of Theudas; and at the time when he spoke, no second Theudas had come before the public as a revolutionist, with whom the first could have been confounded. The Judas mentioned by him must also have been known to the council; but the reason, without doubt, why Gamaliel took pains to describe him more closely, was that he might distinguish him from a demagogue of the same name, who had appeared some ten years before, namely, from the Judas, the son of Ezekias, of whom Josephus has given us information, Arch. L. 17, c. 10, § 5, and de Bel. Jud. L. 2, c. 4, § 1. It results, further, from the words of Gamaliel, that the Theudas adduced by him, entertained probably a high conceit of himself, and in accordance with this, sought to play a distinguished part in the eyes of the nation. This may be inferred from the words-λéyov elvai tira savrov, in which words, as was shown long ago by Kypke, Kuinoel and others, with an appeal to the Greek usage, is contained the idea that he gave himself out as something great and important. While in Gamaliel's speech no intimation whatever occurs, that Judas the Galilean exhibited a spirit which would mark him as an arrogant, ambitious man, and while in Josephus, also, this Judas appears as a person who in his efforts to stir up the Jews to revolt, aimed to restore the ancient constitution and independence of the country, rather than to secure any personal end of his own; on the other hand, Theudas appears more as a self-seeking aspirant, who at the head of the men devoted to him, sought to secure to himself great authority among the people. Besides this, it is not to be doubted, according to the words of Gamaliel, that Theudas with his company met with a disastrous end. He was slain-avnoέon, and his followers were dispersed and came to nothing-διελύθησαν καὶ ἐγένοντο εἰς οὐδέν. Those who escaped alive after the death of their leader, broke up their connection with one another, and disappeared without further influence or observation. Judas the Galilean also perished-άzwólɛro, and his followers too were entirely scattered-deoxoрrio0noar. But it is remarkable that Gamaliel does not add the words with reference to the adherents of Judas-xai ¿yévovro eis ouder. The ground of this lies in the fact, that the scattered remnant of the party of Judas continued after his destruction, as we learn from Josephus, to work on still in secret, and labored to maintain his free spirit and reckless principles among the people. Hence the speaker could not say of this party, that they came to nothing. The faction of Theudas only could be considered as annihilated, because every trace of this faction after the death of their leader, entirely vanished. Finally, in respect to the time in which Theudas presented himself, Gamaliel says-πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀνέστη Θευδάς, i. e. before these days in which we now live, before the time in which the apostles came forward, arose Theudas. How long it was before this time, the speaker does not say; and it was not necessary that he should say, since he addressed those whom he could suppose to possess already a knowledge of the affair. But since Gamaliel subjoins that Judas arose after Theudas-μɛrà τovτov, and since he designates the Judas intended by him, as was remarked above, as the Galilean who rose up in the days of the taxing, in order to distinguish him from another adventurer of the same name, it is evident that Theudas appeared some years earlier than Judas the Galilean, and ran his dangerous career before the taxing alluded to in the Acts of the Apostles. If now we go back from the days in which Judas the Galilean arose to the period which preceded, we come at the distance of ten years to the time of Herod's death, when the country was infested by outlaws, so as to be full of the most terrible commotion. As in addition to Judas the Galilean, Gamaliel wished to present still another remarkable example of unsuccessful agitation, and one, too, drawn from earlier days, he would hardly be expected to pass over the time which immediately followed the death of the first Herod, since this time offerred to him so many distinguished examples of this kind, and since during the long period next preceding, in which Herod governed the country as king, no year presents itself in which we could with equal reason place the outbreak of Theudas. Hence our view is, as has been maintained before now by several learned men, that Theudas is one of those insurgents who appeared under the emperor Augustus, in the year of the death of Herod, i. e. in the year of Rome 750, and consequently ten years before the time of Judas the Galilean. At all events, the statement of Gamaliel requires that we should not place 1848.] Statement of the Difficulty. 413 the Theudas who came before Judas later than in the days of the emperor Augustus. Perhaps it may seem, however, to justify some surprise, that Gamaliel should present to the attention of the Sanhedrim these examples of disappointed political machination, inasmuch as the aims and labors of the apostles were not directed at all to the accomplishment of political changes, but solely to the advancement of the spiritual kingdom of their Lord. But it does not follow, because Gamaliel in his speech associated the two factionists with the apostles, that he himself regarded the apostles as men of a similar character. What we may, however, infer from this with truth is, that their opponents in the assembly who desired the death of the apostles, wished to represent them as actual traitors, or, at least, as persons politically dangerous, whose conduct would bring on confusion and ruin; and under this pretence they demanded their death. This was, indeed, but the old malicious falsehood which the rulers of the Jews had already alleged against Christ (Luke 23: 5), and which they themselves at a later period employed against the apostle Paul (Acts 24: 5). In this way it can be easily explained, how Gamaliel found himself led to refer to the examples which have been cited. He wished by this course to admonish the council that they, who, besides this, at the time of the Roman dominion, possessed no power over life and death, had no occasion to proceed in so unauthorized and violent a manner against the apostles; because if they really entertained treasonable intentions, or should they occasion any disturbance, it was certain they could not escape the destruction which then awaited them. Gamaliel first warns the members of the Sanhedrim, that they should take heed to themselves as to what they would do to these men. He then reminds them of the unhappy fate which befel the factious Theudas and Judas, without any interposition on their part, and thus at the same time reminds them of the destruction which the apostles also must expect, if they were similar people. He then exhorts them, once more, to refrain from the apostles, and remarks in general, that their work if it was an affair of men, would certainly perish. He adds then, the emphatic and significant words: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it. It scarcely needs to be observed here, that Luke has not communicated to us the entire speech of Gamaliel, but only its most important contents. § 2. But it has appeared to some learned men a circumstance of serious import, that Josephus in his historical works has taken no notice of |