If you're new here, you may want to get regular updates via如果你是新這裡，你可能想通過定期更新 RSS feed RSS提要 . 。 Thank you for visiting!感謝您訪問！

In Acts 5:36, Gamaliel is recorded to have said as follows:在行為 5:36，迦瑪說是有記錄如下：

Pro gar toutoon toon heemeroon anestee Theudas legoon einai tina heauton, hoo proseklithee androon arithmos hoos tetrakosioon, hos aneerethee, kai pantes hosoi epeithonto autoo dielutheesan kai egenonto eis ouden. 臨噶爾toutoon香椿heemeroon anestee塞烏達斯legoon einai蒂娜heauton，胡proseklithee androon arithmos胡斯tetrakosioon，居屋aneerethee，啟pantes細井epeithonto autoo dielutheesan偕egenonto EIS的ouden。

“For before these days rose up Theudas, giving himself out to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed, and came to nought.”他說：“這些天前上升了塞烏達斯，讓自己被別人出;在其中一個數字的男子，約 400，加入了自己：誰是殺害，一切，多達服從他，分散，來到化為烏有“。

It is interesting to note, however, that this incident involving Theudas happened about ten or fifteen years after this alleged discourse by Gamaliel!有趣的是注意，但是，這一事件涉及塞烏達斯發生約 10或15年後，這種所謂的話語加馬利亞！ Hence, we are faced with a serious case of anachronism where Acts 5:36 is concerned.因此，我們正面臨著嚴重的案件不合時宜的地方行為5:36關注。

Theudas is referred to by Gamaliel in his speech before the Sanhedrin, when he advised them as to the position they should adopt in regard to the apostles (Acts 5:36).塞烏達斯它被迦瑪在發言之前，公會，他建議他們以他們的立場，就應採取的使徒（徒5:36）。 The failure of the rebellion of Theudas was quoted by Gamaliel on this occasion as typical of the natural end of such movements as were inspired “not of God, but of men.” A rising under one Theudas is also described by Josephus (Ant, XX, v, 1), but this occurred at a later date (according to Josephus about 44 or 45 AD) than the speech of Gamaliel (before 37 AD).失敗的叛亂塞烏達斯加馬利亞引述這一次是典型的自然終結等動作，受到啟發：“不是上帝，而是人。”下一個崛起的一個塞烏達斯也描述約瑟夫（螞蟻，某某，五，1），但這個發生在稍後的日期（根據約瑟夫約 44或45年）比講話迦瑪（前37年）。 ^{1 一}

Raymond Brown states that布朗指出，雷蒙德

Luke also seems to be inaccurate about that census in Acts 5:36.盧克也似乎是不準確的人口普查中有關該法令5:36。 There, Gamaliel, supposed to be giving a speech in the early or mid 30s (shortly after the death of在那裡，迦瑪，應該是在儀式上致辭在30年代初期或中期（不久後去世 Jesus耶穌 ), mentions the uprising of Theudas, which did not occur till some ten years after Gamaliel's speech, and compounds the error by implicitly dating the census and uprising of Judas the Galilean (AD 6-7) after Theudas. ），提到了起義的塞烏達斯，其中並沒有出現，直到大約 10年後迦瑪的講話，並降低了錯誤的暗示約會的普查和起義的猶大伽利略（公元6-7）後塞烏達斯。 ^{2 2}

This error has not escaped the attention of the Biblical commentators, as they sought to postulate various explanations for this obvious historical error.這個錯誤沒有逃過聖經評論家的關注，因為他們尋求各種解釋這個假設明顯的歷史錯誤。

Of the theories put forward in explanation of the apparent anachronism in Gameliel's speech, the two most in favor are (1) that as there were many insurrections during the period in question, the two writers refer to different Theudases; (2) that the reference to Theudas in the narrative of Acts was inserted by a later reviser, whose historical knowledge was inaccurate.該理論提出了解釋顯然過時的Gameliel的講話，這兩個最受青睞是：（1）由於有許多叛亂期間的問題，兩位作家是指不同Theudases;（2）參考以塞烏達斯在敘事行為是插入以後審校，其歷史知識是不準確的。 ^{3 3}

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary , appealing to methodology (1), went so far as to allege that the “Theudas” mentioned by Gamaliel in Acts 5:36 is a different person from the “Theudas” who appeared some fifteen years later: 該威克里夫聖經註釋 ，呼籲方法（1），竟然以聲稱，“塞烏達斯”中提到迦瑪行為5:36是一個不同的人從“塞烏達斯”誰出現了一些15年後：

Acts 5:36行為 5:36
For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.這些天前上升了塞烏達斯，吹噓自己是別人;在其中一個數字的男子，約 400，加入了自己：誰是殺害，一切，多達服從他，分散，帶來化為烏有。

He cited recent historical events to remind them that there had been other movements among the Jews that amounted to nothing, and that therefore they should have no fear of this new group who proclaimed Jesus to be Messiah.他指出，根據最新的歷史事件，提醒他們，曾有其他運動之間的猶太人，等於白說的，，因此他們不應該擔心這個新的小組宣布誰是耶穌的彌賽亞。 Josephus says that there were many such movements in those days of unrest.約瑟夫說，有許多這樣的運動在這些天的騷亂。 Gamaliel recalled one Theudas, who claimed to be a person of great importance and who persuaded some four hundred Jews to follow him.迦瑪回顧一塞烏達斯，誰自稱是一個人非常重要，誰勸一些400猶太人跟他走。 This movement was crushed and Theudas slain.這一運動遭到了鎮壓，塞烏達斯被殺。 We know nothing else about this man.我們知道這人沒有別的。 About AD 45, a magician by the same name led a large number of Jews to the Jordan River, promising that he could separate the waters so that they could walk across the river on dry ground.約公元45，一個魔術師由同一名稱率領大批猶太人在約旦河，希望他能分開的水域，以便他們能夠走路過河幹地上。 The Roman governor, Crispus Fadus, sent horsemen and crushed the movement.羅馬總督，克里斯珀斯Fadus，派出騎兵和鎮壓運動。 This false messiah, however, was a different person from the one mentioned by Gamaliel.這種虛假的救世主，然而，不同的人從一提到加馬利亞。 ^{4 4}

However, this claim seems untenable, in light of the fact the author of Acts (Luke) did not intend to write a chronological account of events, but wrote from a purely theological perspective.然而，這種說法似乎不能成立，鑑於這一事實，提交的行為（路加）不打算寫一順序帳戶的事件，但是說從一個純粹的神學觀點。 Hence:因此：

Luke's intention “to write an orderly account” (1:3) does not imply that he gives us exact盧克的意圖“寫一個有序的帳戶”（1:3），並不意味著他給我們的確切 history歷史 or chronology.或年表。 A study of Luke/Acts shows that Luke had shortcomings as a historian, eg, in Acts 5:36 he has Gamaliel in the mid-30s refer in the past to a revolt by Theudas which did not occur till the 40s – and then Luke compounds the confusion by having Gamaliel refer to the revolt led by Judas the Galilean (AD 6) as if it came after the revolt of Theudas!一項研究的盧克 /行為表明，盧克有一些缺點，作為一個歷史學家，例如，在使徒5:36他迦瑪在35歲左右是指在過去一個由塞烏達斯的反抗並沒有發生，直到40年代 - 然後盧克化合物的混亂是指通過讓迦瑪起義領導猶大伽利略（公元6）如果是繼起義中的塞烏達斯！ There is every reason to believe that Luke himself composed many or all the speeches he has placed on the lips of Peter and Paul in Acts.我們有充分的理由相信，自己組成的盧克許多或所有的發言，他放在嘴唇彼得和保羅在使徒行。 To be sure he may be reusing older material in these speeches, but Luke weaves it together in a dramatic setting….Thus, if one wishes to use the statements in the Lucan Prologue to make prejudgments about the amount of historical precision one can expect in the infancy narrative, one must first interpret the Prologue in the light of Luke's procedure in the body of Luke/Acts – a procedure that gives evidence of considerable freedom of composition, occasional historical inexactitudes, and a primary interest in the logical rather than the chronological.可以肯定的是他可能會被重複使用舊材料，這些發言，但盧克一起編織在一個戲劇性的環境 ...。因此，如果要使用報表中的盧肯序幕先入為主的金額約 1歷史精度可以預期在嬰兒的敘述，首先必須解釋的序幕在光明的盧克的過程中身體的盧克 /行為 - 一個程序，讓證據相當自由組合，偶爾歷史 inexactitudes，和基層利益的邏輯，而不是按時間順序。 ^{5 5}

In conclusion, a historically-erroneous document certainly cannot be “divinely-inspired”.總之，歷史上，錯誤的文件當然不能被“神的靈感”。 The anachronistic error in Acts 5:36 is yet another reason why Muslims reject the status of the Bible as being the 'Word of God', and indeed, they are certainly most justified in doing so.不合時代的錯誤行為 5:36又是另一個原因穆斯林拒絕接受現況的聖經，因為這是'上帝的話'，而事實上，他們當然是最有理由這樣做。

And only God knows best!而且，只有上帝知道最好的！

1. International Standard 國際標準 Bible 聖經 Encyclopaedia , Electronic Database Copyright (c)1996 by Biblesoft. 百科全書 ，電子資料庫版權所有（c）1996年由Biblesoft。 [ [ back背面 ] ]
2. Raymond E. Brown, The Birth Of The Messiah (Cassell & Collier, 1977), p.雷蒙德大腸桿菌布朗，出生率的彌賽亞 （卡塞爾和科利爾，1977年），第 555 [ 555 [ back背面 ] ]
3. International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia , op. 國際標準聖經百科全書 ，同前。 cit.同前。 [ [ back背面 ] ]
4. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary , Electronic Database. 該威克里夫聖經註釋 ，電子數據庫。 Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press.版權所有（c）1962年穆迪出版社。 [ [ back背面 ] ]
5. Raymond E. Brown, op cit. , p.雷蒙德大腸桿菌布朗， 同前。山口 239 [ 239 [ back背面 ] ]