Talk:Judas of Galilee

Untitled
this article needs some work, for example:
 * "According to the Jewish historian, Josephus, in his Antiquities, Judas the Galilean was drowned in a lake in this fashion. Another source says, Josephus does not relate the death of Judas, although he does report (Antiquities 20.5.2 102) that Judas' sons James and Simon were executed by procurator Alexander in about 46 CE, several years after R. Gamaliel's statement."

Does this mean Gamaliel is the source for the drowning story and Antiquities is the source for the execution story? A reference for Gamaliel would be nice.


 * No, it's just a mix up. Gamaliel is reported in Acts of the Apostles as briefly mentioning him. Almost all detailed information comes from Josephus, who says nothing about him drowning in a lake. I can find no evidence that Judas was killed in this way. Paul B 10:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Judas of Galilee and Judas Thomas connection
For some interesting material on the links between this historical figure and the Gnostic figure of St. Thomas, Jesus' twin from the Gnostic Gospels, see the discussion in the Wikipedia reference to Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doksomedon (talk • contribs) 14:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference for Barnett re wrong placing of Theudas
A careful reading of Barnett will reveal that while he agrees that Gamaliel's identification of Theudas is problematic, his argument doesn't suggest that Luke is necessarily in factual error at this particular point. Reading the article as written suggests that Barnett does, however, argue for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.167.247 (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you maybe quote the passage in Barnett you are referring to? --Lindert (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnett says nothing to suggest that the reference to Judas in Acts 5:57 is historically problematic. The historical problem with this verse has always been with the identification of Theudas, not Judas as suggested by the sentence to which the Barnett reference was attached. Furthermore, Barnett's argument is not that Luke has made a chronological error, but that his Gamaliel is talking about some earlier Theudas rather than Josephus' Theudas. Barnett first argues that Luke would most likely not have made such an error when discussing an "infamous contemporary" of his own time. Then Barnett argues for the plausibility that Luke is referring to someone else as follows:
 * "Theudas" was a contraction of "Theodotus," the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Jonathan" ("given by God"). Apart from the son of Saul, a more recent Jonathan was the Maccabean warrior king (161-43 B.C.). Many Jewish boys were given the names of Maccabean heroes. Greek versions of "Jonathon" appear in inscriptions as "Theudion," a contraction of Theodotian, which was a variant of Theodotus. Josephus and Luke coincidentally may have using the name "Theudas" to refer to different men whose original name was Jonathan. (Barnett, pp. 199-200)

Thus, Barnett is in no way a supporting source for a claim that Acts 5:37's statement about Judas is an error. Without any other supporting references, such claim should not be included in the article. --Jstovell (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Zadok the Pharisee
Does Zadok the Pharisee relate to the Pharisees or the Zadokites (Sadducees)? Robert Eisenman shows that Zadokites (Sadducees) were divided between rich and poor groups. ZDK in fact also was the name given to those considered "Righteous" (including James the broth of Jesus), translated Biblically as "Justus" ot Just.John D. Croft (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Zadok the Pharisee was, as his nickname suggests, associated with the Pharisees. He does not have any connection with the Sadducees other than that he happens to have a related name. Just as someone named Jacob was not necessarily a Jacobite, a Zadok need not be Zadokite. According to Josephus, Zadok the Pharisee and Judus of Galilee were the founders of the "fourth philosophic sect" among the Jews, the first three being the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Essenes. The views of this "fourth sect", commonly called the Zealots, were identical to that of the Pharisees, apart from their "inviolable attachment to liberty", which induced them to rebellion against the Roman oppressors. The only extant ancient source for this is Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, book 18. - Lindert (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * On the basis of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Robert Eisenman shows that things were a lot more fluid than Josephus portrayed. Remember, Josephus was trying to ingratiate himself with his Roman masters.  The Sadducees seem to have been divided between the Richer "priests" who allied themselves with Herodians and Roman interests (as tax wealthy farmers), and the poorer Sadducees, who supported the "fourth movement", as did many Pharisees and Essenes, who were linked to the Ebionim (the meek, the poor). John D. Croft (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Historicity
I added a short paragraph concerning the reliability of Josephus's description here. There is much to be said on the historical reliability of aspects of Josephus's works in general - something that seems to be reflected on the talk page here, for example, but not on the main Josephus article or elsewhere. I might write about it if I find the time. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:8B14 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

To add: While Haaland only suggests that the fourth sect is Josephus's construction, McLaren goes further and considers both Judas and his revolt to be unhistorical. McLaren's position is quite radical and doesn't take into account the fact that the author of Luke-Acts knows Judas too - although whether Luke used Josephus as a source remains a matter of debate. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:8B14 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)