Theudas

[John2]

Being someone who thinks that Jesus was a Fourth Philosopher (or at least that the literary figure called Jesus walks and talks like one), Theudas seems like a suitable parallel to me.

I can imagine that if followers of Theudas had survived and flourished after 70 CE and wrote things about him, their writings wouldn't say, "He was a normal guy and nothing out the ordinary ever happened," but instead would say things like how amazing he was and that his life and deeds were predicted by the OT.

Given what little we know about Theudas (but supplemented with what Josephus and other sources say about the Fourth Philosophy), I'm inclined to think that he was a Jewish man who agreed with "Pharisaic notions" (such as resurrection of the dead, as per Josephus) and rejected the oral Torah ("the customs of our fathers were altered ... by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal") and believed in the Messiah ("that one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth") and thought of himself as being some kind of Joshua redivivus, and that he and some of his followers were consequently killed by the authorities.

Is this not similar to the story of Jesus in the NT? Jesus (or the literary figure called Jesus) is presented as being a Jewish man who agreed with "Pharisaic notions" (like resurrection of the dead) and rejected the oral Torah (“Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?") and believed in the Messiah and people were "unacquainted" with his "system of philosophy" (“What is this? A new teaching with authority!") and he thought of himself as being Daniel's "son of man" figure, and he and some of his followers were consequently killed by the authorities.

Jesus strikes me as being like the kind of Fourth Philosophers Josephus describes in War 2.13.4.

These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty. But Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen both armed, who destroyed a great number of them.

Is this not similar to Jesus' activity in the NT? In Mk. 6:30-44, for example, Jesus takes his followers to a "desolate place" and "deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration" and showed them the "signal" of multiplying bread and fish.

Meanwhile, the apostles gathered around Jesus and brought him news of all they had done and taught. And he said to them, “Come with me privately to a solitary place ..." So they went away in a boat by themselves to a solitary place ... And he began to teach them many things ... the disciples came to Jesus and said, “This is a desolate place ...."

And just like I'm more inclined to think that Theudas was a Jewish Fourth Philosopher instead of an imaginary figure that was turned into a human by Josephus' time or was an invention of Josephus, I'm inclined to think the same thing about Jesus, even if the same arguments are made about him that could be made for Theudas, like the issue of the lateness and trustworthiness of Josephus (who, like Eusebius, worked for the emperor).

All things considered, it seems simpler and makes more sense to me to suppose that Jesus was just another crazy Fourth Philosopher (whose life and deeds were embellished by his followers) than an imaginary figure that was turned into a human by Christians who didn't like Marcion.

[John2]

I've always had the impression that Theudas was a "violent revolutionary," but as I take another look at what Josephus says about him, nothing appears to indicate that other than the allusion to Joshua, but even then all he did was take people to the Jordan to watch him try to divide it and pass through it. There is nothing about being armed (unless that is implied by "their effects") or that he had any plans for violence, only that he believed he was a prophet and moved people with his words. Maybe he believed that God would help conquer the Romans like Christians did.

That doesn't seem any more violent to me than Josephus' account of John the Baptist or Jesus in the NT, it's just a different kind of wackiness. He was just some guy who drew large crowds with his words and fanciful ideas, and given the revolutionary climate of the time it bothered the authorities and resulted in his death and that of some of his followers.


Ant. 20.5.1:

Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.

I'd say that's a more dramatic "Triumphal Entry" into Jerusalem than Jesus' though, and I can imagine Theudas' followers making something of it. "We believe in God and his Messiah Theudas, killed under Cuspius Fadus and declared son of God when his holy head was carried to Jerusalem."

[John2]

One of the indications for me that Christians were Fourth Philosophers is that both groups subscribed to what Josephus calls "Pharisaic notions," with the most distinctive "notions" being belief in the resurrection of the dead and angels. These "notions," of course, form the core of Christianity, as the author of Acts (speaking through Paul) notes in 23:6-9 and 26:4-8:

Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. It is because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” As soon as he had said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is neither a resurrection, nor angels, nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

A great clamor arose, and some scribes from the party of the Pharisees got up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?”

Surely all the Jews know how I have lived from the earliest days of my youth, among my own people and in Jerusalem. They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that I lived as a Pharisee, adhering to the strictest sect of our religion.

And now I stand on trial because of my hope in the promise that God made to our fathers, the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to realize as they earnestly serve God day and night. It is because of this hope, O king, that I am accused by the Jews. Why would any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?

The "Pharisaic notions" of resurrection and angels are why Jesus castigates the Sadducees and not the Pharisees in Mk. 12:18-27.

Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus and questioned him ... Jesus said to them, “Aren’t you mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.

But concerning the dead rising, have you not read about the burning bush in the Book of Moses, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

So on this matter only the Sadducees were "badly mistaken." And Jesus was similarly okay with the "Pharisaic notion" of wearing tefillin as long as they weren't showy, since he castigates Pharisees only for wearing big tefillin, as per Mt. 23:5 ("Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long").

And while their position on Gentile circumcision did not prevail with Jewish Christian leaders, Acts 15:5-6 notes that there were Pharisee Christians and that their objections were worthy enough for Jewish Christian leaders to "look into this matter."

But some believers from the party of the Pharisees stood up and declared, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” So the apostles and elders met to look into this matter.

And Acts 5:35-40 presents the Pharisee leader Gamaliel as sympathizing with Christians and comparing them with Fourth Philosophers, including Theudas.

“Men of Israel,” he said, “consider carefully what you are about to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men joined him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and drew away people after him. He too perished, and all his followers were scattered.

So in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone. Let them go! For if their purpose or endeavor is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them. You may even find yourselves fighting against God.” At this, they yielded to Gamaliel.

And of course Paul himself says he was a Pharisee in Philippians 3:4-5 and had followed the oral Torah before becoming a Christian in Gal. 1:13-14.

If anyone else thinks he has grounds for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin; a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee.

For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism ... I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

And like Paul, Jesus and Fourth Philosophers parted company with the Pharisees over the issue of adherence to the oral Torah. As Mk. 7:3-13 puts it:

Now in holding to the tradition of the elders, the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat until they wash their hands ceremonially. And on returning from the market, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions for them to observe, including the washing of cups, pitchers, kettles, and couches for dining.

So the Pharisees and scribes questioned Jesus: “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders? Instead, they eat with defiled hands.”

Jesus answered them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites ... You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.”

He went on to say, “You neatly set aside the command of God to maintain your own tradition ... you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down. And you do so in many such matters.”

And as Josephus notes about the Fourth Philosophy, "the customs of our fathers were altered ... by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal."


So like Fourth Philosophers (presumably including Theudas, whom Acts likens to Christians), Christians agreed with "Pharisaic notions" (like resurrection of the dead and angels) and rejected the oral Torah, and for these (and other) reasons I think Christians were Fourth Philosophers.

[John2]

Another indication for me that Christians were Fourth Philosophers is Jesus' attitude towards Fourth Philosophers and their attitude towards him. Josephus notes that some Fourth Philosophers had "deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration," and as Jesus says in Mk. 13:5-6, "See to it that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am He,’ and will deceive many." And In Mt. 11:12 Jesus says he did not care for the violent approach of some Fourth Philosophers ("From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force").

And Mk. 15:37-32 says that Jesus was crucified along with two Fourth Philosophers and that they had berated him.

Along with Jesus, they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left ... And even those who were crucified with him berated him.

In my view this is all in keeping with what Josephus says about "the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left."

[John2]

Another indication for me that Jesus was a Fourth Philosopher (or at least that the literary figure called Jesus is presented as being one) is his willingness to die for his "philosophy." As Josephus says in Ant. 18.1.6:

They think little of submitting to death in unusual forms and permitting vengeance to fall on kinsmen and friends if only they may avoid calling any man master. Inasmuch as most people have seen the steadfastness of their resolution amid such circumstances, I may forgo any further account. For I have no fear that anything reported of them will be considered incredible. The danger is, rather, that report may minimize the indifference with which they accept the grinding misery of pain.

This was the part of Jesus' "philosophy" that his disciples did not understand during his life, e.g., Mk. 8:31-32:

Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke this message quite frankly, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

This "philosophy" resulted in his death by crucifixion, like the two Fourth Philosophers who died along with him ("Along with Jesus, they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left") and the sons of Judas the Galilean ("The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified") and numerous others during the 66-70 CE war.

So for me Jesus lived and died like a Fourth Philosopher, and all for the ultimate Fourth Philosophic belief that "one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." And if he was only a literary figure then I think someone did a good job of making him look like a Fourth Philosopher.

[John2]

The willingness of Fourth Philosophers to suffer and die for their cause is not only similar to that of Jesus, it is part of the ethos of Christianity after him. Paul, for example, boasted that his sufferings were greater than other apostles (of which they had apparently also boasted) in 2 Cor. 11:21-25.

Speaking as a fool, however, I can match what anyone else dares to boast about. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? I am speaking like I am out of my mind, but I am so much more: in harder labor, in more imprisonments, in worse beatings, in frequent danger of death. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned ...

Paul also says that he had persecuted the church severely before his conversion ("how severely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it"). And as Jesus says in Mk. 13:9-13:

You will be delivered over to the councils and beaten in the synagogues. On my account you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them ... You will be hated by everyone because of my name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.

And as James 5:6 says:

You have condemned and murdered the righteous, who did not resist you.

As as 1 Peter 2:19-21 says:

For if anyone endures the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God, this is to be commended. How is it to your credit if you are beaten for doing wrong and you endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his footsteps:

And then there's the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts (whether it is true or not), in which he is presented as "submitting to death" with "steadfast resolution" and "indifference" to "the grinding misery of pain." And this element of Christianity continued on, to Ignatius, Justin Martyr and beyond, and whether Jesus existed or not, I think it could be rooted in the martyrdom ethos of the Fourth Philosophy.

[John2]

Another thing that makes me think Jesus was a Fourth Philosopher (or again, that the literary figure named Jesus is presented as being one) is his presentation as a "magician" (i.e., miracle worker), since this is how Josephus describes some Fourth Philosophers, including Theudas ("a certain magician, whose name was Theudas").

And just like these "magicians" took people out to the wilderness to "show them the signals of liberty," so did Jesus take his followers to "a desolate place" to show them the "signal" of the multiplication of bread and fish in Mk. 6:35-44, for example.

By now the hour was already late. So the disciples came to Jesus and said, "This is a desolate place, and the hour is already late. Dismiss the crowd so they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.”

But Jesus told them, “You give them something to eat.”

They asked Him, “Should we go out and spend two hundred denarii to give all of them bread to eat?”

“Go and see how many loaves you have,” he told them.

And after checking, they said, “Five—and two fish.”

Then Jesus directed them to have the people sit in groups on the green grass. So they sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties.

Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, Jesus spoke a blessing and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to set before the people. And he divided the two fish among them all.

They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish. And there were five thousand men who had eaten the loaves.

And while Jesus was more moderate than some Fourth Philosophers, his goal was the same as all of them ("that one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth'") and I think his miracles were "signals of liberty" given what he says in Mk.1:14-15.

After the arrest of John, Jesus went into Galilee and proclaimed the gospel of God. “The time is fulfilled,” he said, “and the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe in the gospel!”

Cf., War 2.13.4:

These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty.