Chart of Events/Figures in Both Josephus and Acts

Explanations and Notes

1. Herod Agrippa I’s Death (44 AD):
   • Acts: Portrays Agrippa’s death as divine judgment for accepting worship as a god, with an angel striking him, leading to death by worms (Acts 12:20–23).
   • Josephus: Describes Agrippa falling ill at a festival in Caesarea, possibly due to poisoning or a medical condition, dying after five days (Antiquities 19.8.2). Both accounts align on the sudden and dramatic nature of his death.
   • Historical Context: Agrippa I, king of Judea, was a key figure under Emperor Claudius. His death created a power vacuum, leading to direct Roman rule.
2. Gamaliel the Pharisee (~30–50 AD):
   • Acts: Gamaliel, a respected Sanhedrin member, advises caution regarding the apostles, citing past failed movements (Acts 5:34–39).
   • Josephus: Mentions Gamaliel as a leading Pharisee and teacher, influential in Jewish legal circles (Antiquities 20.9.4). He is likely the same figure, possibly Paul’s teacher (Acts 22:3).
   • Note: The timing of Gamaliel’s speech in Acts aligns with early Christian persecution (~30–35 AD), though Josephus’s references are less specific.
3. Theudas the Insurrectionist (~44–46 AD):
   • Acts: Gamaliel references Theudas’s failed revolt as an example of movements that collapse (Acts 5:36).
   • Josephus: Describes Theudas leading followers to the Jordan River, claiming prophetic powers, but killed by Roman forces (Antiquities 20.5.1).
   • Issue: Acts places Theudas before Judas the Galilean (6 AD), creating a chronological discrepancy, as Josephus dates Theudas to ~44–46 AD. This may reflect a narrative anachronism in Acts or a different Theudas.
4. Judas the Galilean (~6 AD):
   • Acts: Mentions Judas’s revolt during the census, which failed (Acts 5:37).
   • Josephus: Describes Judas leading a tax revolt against Rome during Quirinius’s census, founding the Zealot movement (Antiquities 18.1.1; Jewish War 2.8.1).
   • Context: The census (6 AD) sparked widespread unrest, and Judas’s movement influenced later Jewish rebellions.
5. Famine under Claudius (~46–48 AD):
   • Acts: Describes a famine predicted by Agabus, leading to Christian relief efforts (Acts 11:27–30).
   • Josephus: Notes a severe famine in Judea, with Queen Helena of Adiabene providing aid (Antiquities 20.2.5).
   • Context: The famine under Emperor Claudius aligns with historical records of grain shortages in the eastern Mediterranean.
6. Herod Agrippa II and Bernice (~59–62 AD):
   • Acts: Agrippa II and Bernice hear Paul’s defense in Caesarea, with Agrippa noting Paul could have been freed if not for his appeal to Caesar (Acts 25:13–26:32).
   • Josephus: Details Agrippa II’s role as a Roman client king and Bernice’s controversial presence (Antiquities 20.7.2–3).
   • Context: Agrippa II ruled parts of Judea and advised Roman governors, while Bernice was a prominent figure, later linked to Titus.
7. Felix, Roman Governor (~52–60 AD):
   • Acts: Felix oversees Paul’s trial, keeps him imprisoned, and hopes for a bribe (Acts 23:24–24:27).
   • Josephus: Describes Felix’s governorship, marked by harsh measures against Jewish rebels (Antiquities 20.7.1–2).
   • Context: Felix’s rule was turbulent, contributing to rising tensions in Judea.
8. Festus, Roman Governor (~60–62 AD):
   • Acts: Festus succeeds Felix, hears Paul’s case, and sends him to Rome (Acts 24:27–25:12).
   • Josephus: Notes Festus’s efforts to manage Jewish-Roman conflicts (Antiquities 20.8.9–10).
   • Context: Festus’s brief governorship preceded the First Jewish-Roman War.
9. Ananias, High Priest (~47–59 AD):
   • Acts: Ananias orders Paul struck during his trial, prompting Paul’s rebuke (Acts 23:2–5).
   • Josephus: Describes Ananias’s corrupt tenure and eventual assassination by Jewish rebels (Antiquities 20.9.2).
   • Context: Ananias was a polarizing figure, aligned with Roman interests.

Comparison: The Egyptian in Acts and Josephus

Detailed Comparison

1. The Egyptian in Acts:
   • In Acts 21:38, during Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem, a Roman tribune (Claudius Lysias) mistakes Paul for “the Egyptian,” asking, “Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins (Sicarii) out into the wilderness?” (ESV). This implies the Egyptian was a known figure associated with a recent uprising.
   • The “Sicarii” were a radical Jewish group known for assassinations, often targeting Roman collaborators. Acts suggests the Egyptian led a significant number of them, though the scale (4,000) is smaller than Josephus’s account.
2. The Egyptian in Josephus:
   • In Jewish War 2.13.5, Josephus describes the Egyptian as a false prophet who gathered a large following—around 30,000 people—and led them to the Mount of Olives, claiming he would cause the walls of Jerusalem to fall, signaling the overthrow of Roman rule. Roman governor Felix attacked, dispersing the group, and the Egyptian escaped.
   • In Antiquities 20.8.6, Josephus provides a similar account, noting the Egyptian’s messianic claims and Felix’s decisive response. He emphasizes the Roman crackdown on such movements, which were common during this period of unrest.
   • The discrepancy in numbers (4,000 in Acts vs. 30,000 in Josephus) may reflect exaggeration by Josephus, a common trait in ancient historiography, or a difference in sources.
3. Historical Context and Overlap:
   • Date: Both accounts place the Egyptian’s revolt during Felix’s governorship (52–60 AD), likely around 55–58 AD, aligning with the turbulent period leading up to the First Jewish-Roman War (66–73 AD).
   • Nature of the Figure: Both sources depict the Egyptian as a messianic or prophetic figure leading a rebellious movement against Roman authority, fitting the pattern of 1st-century Jewish uprisings. Acts’ reference to the Sicarii connects him to violent resistance, while Josephus emphasizes his role as a false prophet with a large, albeit short-lived, following.
   • Location: Acts mentions the wilderness, while Josephus specifies the Mount of Olives as the staging ground for the Egyptian’s demonstration, which overlooks Jerusalem—a symbolically significant location for messianic expectations.
4. Differences and Interpretation:
   • Acts provides a brief, secondhand reference, using the Egyptian as a point of mistaken identity to highlight the Roman perception of Paul as a potential revolutionary. Josephus, writing as a historian, gives a more detailed narrative, focusing on the event itself and its political implications.
   • The numerical difference (4,000 vs. 30,000) could stem from Acts relying on a Roman report (via the tribune) with a more conservative estimate, while Josephus, writing later, might inflate numbers to emphasize the scale of unrest under Roman rule.
   • Neither source names the Egyptian, and his fate remains unclear—Josephus notes he fled, while Acts offers no further details.