Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[maximara]

Maximara:Also doesn't this lead credence to the idea that the Jesus movement goes back to c100 BCE which supporters dismiss with the same argument from silence arguments used against the idea there was a historical Jesus?


I'm not arguing from silence for anything.
I was just noting that it's not odd for Hebrew monastic adherents to not go on at length about individual figures and instead to spend a good deal of time going on about the ideals of how to live life "right".

The Qumran group actually makes a point to not even mention their leadership by name at all, nor use any title from that teacher as a description of their following.

In Hebrew culture of this time, creating idols out of leaders was a big taboo; it's even an idiom of their culture: "Morning Star". The idiom was comparing leaders who wanted recognition and following with Venus in the sky attempting to outshine the Sun as the supplier of daylight in the morning.

You misunderstand my question. One of the main arguments by apologists for Christianity predating Jesus c29 CE is no one mentions it (ie argument from silence). But if these groups were as secretive as you state then it is totally possible that Christianity goes all the way back to c100 CE.

 

[maximara]

Yeah, I came across that Theudas as well. I'm sure he wasn't the same one as Josepehus was referring to. So, we'd have to say that Philo doesn't mention him. Yet, he existed, as attested to by Josephus. So, it's quite possible Philo knew about, and didn't bother mentioning Jesus. I can see him as being too minor a character for Philo to care about

The problem with the "Jesus being to minor a character" argument is that if you takes Acts seriously (stop laughing ) by 37 CE the movement had spread to three Roman provinces (Galilee, Samaria, and Judea).

You have a movement started by a guy who trashed the vendors in the Temple and whose trial resulted in a mob out for his blood and you don't notice him?

Remember while on his way to see Caligula Philo is being written to by Herod Agrippa who is trying to show Pontius Pilate as a blunderer. Why wouldn't Herod Agrippa relay the existence of a possible rebellious group to Philo? Based on what Paul claims in his letter its not like they were trying to hide what they were and what they were preaching.

It would be like no one even mentioning Mormonism until the 1880s. I mean we are not talking about of a group akin to those of the various Great Awakenings of the 1730, 1790-1840, 1850-1900 that rose and fell within a few years and tend to be relegated to isolated communities.

We are talking about what was supposedly an open and large movement whose founder likely commited a state crime and therefore would have been regarded by the Roman community in the same way Anarchists were in the 1880s-1920s ie dangerous lunatics.

 

[Brainache]

The problem with the "Jesus being to minor a character" argument is that if you takes Acts seriously (stop laughing ) by 37 CE the movement had spread to three Roman provinces (Galilee, Samaria, and Judea).

You have a movement started by a guy who trashed the vendors in the Temple and whose trial resulted in a mob out for his blood and you don't notice him?

Remember while on his way to see Caligula Philo is being written to by Herod Agrippa who is trying to show Pontius Pilate as a blunderer. Why wouldn't Herod Agrippa relay the existence of a possible rebellious group to Philo? Based on what Paul claims in his letter its not like they were trying to hide what they were and what they were preaching.

It would be like no one even mentioning Mormonism until the 1880s. I mean we are not talking about of a group akin to those of the various Great Awakenings of the 1730, 1790-1840, 1850-1900 that rose and fell within a few years and tend to be relegated to isolated communities.

We are talking about what was supposedly an open and large movement whose founder likely commited a state crime and therefore would have been regarded by the Roman community in the same way Anarchists were in the 1880s-1920s ie dangerous lunatics.

Is it necessarily the case that Jesus was the Founder of the group? I think a case can be made that Jesus and his followers either split -off from, or somehow took over the group that John The Baptist had been running.

And, that overall this anti-Establishment Messianism during the seventy years leading up to the revolt, was a widespread popular movement with lots of different Teachers. The PTB did try to suppress them, but it didn't work.

I think a lot of the time the Romans etc saw them more like the US Government saw the Hippies. Sure you get the occasional Abbie Hoffman or Charlie Manson, but most of them are harmless Peaceniks.

Boy were the Romans wrong...

 

[TimCallahan]

Is it necessarily the case that Jesus was the Founder of the group? I think a case can be made that Jesus and his followers either split -off from, or somehow took over the group that John The Baptist had been running.

And, that overall this anti-Establishment Messianism during the seventy years leading up to the revolt, was a widespread popular movement with lots of different Teachers. The PTB did try to suppress them, but it didn't work.

I think a lot of the time the Romans etc saw them more like the US Government saw the Hippies. Sure you get the occasional Abbie Hoffman or Charlie Manson, but most of them are harmless Peaceniks.

Boy were the Romans wrong...

When it comes right down to it, Christianity as a separate religion was founded in the Greek speaking cities of the Aegean region and western Asia Minor by Paul, who dispensed with any real Jesus of Nazareth in favor of the Christ Jesus of his hallucinatory conversion experience.

 

[Brainache]

When it comes right down to it, Christianity as a separate religion was founded in the Greek speaking cities of the Aegean region and western Asia Minor by Paul, who dispensed with any real Jesus of Nazareth in favor of the Christ Jesus of his hallucinatory conversion experience.

So if these "Therapeutae" were part of the same movement that Paul was having all of his conflicts with (ie the original Jesus cult), they would have been all about righteousness etc and not too excited about Jesus himself.

Is that right?

 

[JaysonR]

You misunderstand my question. One of the main arguments by apologists for Christianity predating Jesus c29 CE is no one mentions it (ie argument from silence). But if these groups were as secretive as you state then it is totally possible that Christianity goes all the way back to c100 CE.

I think that's almost impossible to assert, because we can understand that Zoroastrianism was already developed by the time of the Babylonian exile, and that account clearly influenced the later Christian cosmic mythology, and would have also had some level of iteration in Hebrew culture on small scales anyway, and it's not odd for a philosophy or theological view to have been held orally for a time before a written form begins to emerge, so we could conjecture about such a proposition without end, but I don't see anything that we can work off of concretely to this end.

All that I can state is that it wouldn't be odd for Hebrews to not spend a heavy amount of time venerating a leading figure of a change to theological philosophy and the interpretation of it, and to instead focus on the theological philosophy itself; such was their cultural background and way of thinking.

This is the most likely reason why none of these early groups lasted or succeeded, but instead fell away into history silently while the non-Hebraic cultures picked up the wafts of these concepts and ran with it in the venerating fashion of Hellenistic culture.

Reading a bunch of ideas on life is only mildly fascinating to the general public, while epic stories of fate-bound tragic savior heroes have always been fashionably captivating to people across time, and especially to the Hellenistic culture.

 

[JaysonR]

So if these "Therapeutae" were part of the same movement that Paul was having all of his conflicts with (ie the original Jesus cult), they would have been all about righteousness etc and not too excited about Jesus himself.

Is that right?

Yes, but I don't think these are the group he was having issues with as these folks were further south than Paul really bothered with.

The north-bound variations of these same types of groups that moved across Antioch, on the other hand, could have bumped somewhat into Pauline followings; though probably not very successfully.

It's rather easy to offer up strict guideline and piety to Hebrew peoples who have little left (thanks to the socio-political situation of the time), but northern Hellenistic trade cities were not really in a position begging for some respite to loss of property and control.
They were instead, as we see in Asia Minor, far more fascinated with the grand scale and epic dramatics of the cosmic opera of mankind, and the lavish venerations and language that such perspective offers.

Paulinism is much more attractive in such a culture than any humble charge for strict adherence and piety lacking central gravity around an epic savior of unification, solidarity in spirit, judgement, and retribution.

Hebrew cultural followings would not offer the idea of ratification through proxy of some figure (keep in mind that a large portion of the Jesus philosophical thrust that is asserted in Matthew and Mark is based on individual responsibility and ownership, condemning the state in which sacrifices had become scapegoat processes with no actual earnestness applied [people were raising animals just for sacrifices for their wrongs, and hiring wailers to grieve for them]), yet such a concept was rather familiar and sensible to many Hellenistic cultures even prior to Christianity, where it would not be odd for an ontological view to exist where humans were left powerless to the cosmic battles alone, and were left to pick heroes to side with and cheer for to fight on their behalf against the evils of the cosmic ontological plane of existence.

 

[TimCallahan]

So if these "Therapeutae" were part of the same movement that Paul was having all of his conflicts with (ie the original Jesus cult), they would have been all about righteousness etc and not too excited about Jesus himself.

Is that right?

I'm really uncertain as to where the Theraputae fit in to all this or if they even do. However, if you read Paul's letter to the Galatians, it's quite apparent that he had strong conflicts with James. I suspect that way they settled it was, as Paul says in Galatians, that he would go to the Gentiles. I suspect - and I have to say, this is my suspicion only - that James and company were happy to see Paul go elsewhere.

 

[JaysonR]

I'm really uncertain as to where the Theraputae fit in to all this or if they even do. However, if you read Paul's letter to the Galatians, it's quite apparent that he had strong conflicts with James. I suspect that way they settled it was, as Paul says in Galatians, that he would go to the Gentiles. I suspect - and I have to say, this is my suspicion only - that James and company were happy to see Paul go elsewhere.

You are dead on.
Actually, Galatians is where we see Paul fighting with (most likely) the James group (not Theraputae; these are southerners, not northerners) after an agreement previously that ended as you are thinking (James just happy to see Paul piss off, and Paul thinking that meant he was given James' grace, which is why Paul's so hopping mad in Galatians), but the ending of it all is the entrapment of Paul by the Jerusalem Church in Acts - which this action seems to be in response to the fight over Galatia.

 

[Brainache]

I'm really uncertain as to where the Theraputae fit in to all this or if they even do. However, if you read Paul's letter to the Galatians, it's quite apparent that he had strong conflicts with James. I suspect that way they settled it was, as Paul says in Galatians, that he would go to the Gentiles. I suspect - and I have to say, this is my suspicion only - that James and company were happy to see Paul go elsewhere.

Well, they would have been happy if he did, but he didn't. I think if Paul was a P.G. Wodehouse character, someone would refer to him at some point as an "Oily little tick".

 

[maximara]

We don't know but worship of Egyptian deities was regarded as enough of a problem that in 19 CE Tiberius expelled them from Rome...along with the Jewish population (Boatwright, Mary T. (2012) Peoples of the Roman World Cambridge University Press pg 123) Furthermore we know that the Egyptian deity cults were all over the place in the Roman world.

I thought it was Claudius who expelled the Jews from Rome, though that's a minor point. IIRC the Romans also forbade the Bacchanalia from being practiced in Italy. Reading Tacitus and Suetonius, they come across as grumpy conservative types who are disgusted by all these foreign religions coming to Rome.

I though it was a misstatement as well which is why I went and got an scholarly reference for it. From what we know Rome was extremely tolerate of other religions. As long as you revered the Emperor as a "god" and didn't cause trouble they more or less left you alone. Which suggests that the Egyptian religions either had issues with saying the Emperor was a god (possible) or they cause social unrest (also possible)

Problem is Theudas is also the name of a man who "was head of the Egyptian Therapeuts, whose customs were described with admiration by Philo in his essay The Contemplative Life.". While some people like to claim this Theudas is the same as described in Josephus or the one in Acts there is nothing to support it.

Yeah, I came across that Theudas as well. I'm sure he wasn't the same one as Josepehus was referring to. So, we'd have to say that Philo doesn't mention him.

Except as the the above link shows efforts to make them one and the same are tried:

"The irrepressible Prodigal Son, Theudas, was in his prime between 4 BC and 6 AD. He was head of the Egyptian Therapeuts, whose customs were described with admiration by Philo in his essay The Contemplative Life. " ... "Theudas met his end in March, 44 AD. Josephus, writing in Rome in the 70's and relying on earlier written records, knew of him under that name only from a document recording the troubles in the court of the Agrippas"

Another source claims Acts got the order wrong and its Theudas is the same is the same as the one in Josephus. The fact people make such jumps in logic shows how desperate they are to make some sense out of the fragmentary material we have.

 

[Brainache]

I though it was a misstatement as well which is why I went and got an scholarly reference for it. From what we know Rome was extremely tolerate of other religions. As long as you revered the Emperor as a "god" and didn't cause trouble they more or less left you alone. Which suggests that the Egyptian religions either had issues with saying the Emperor was a god (possible) or they cause social unrest (also possible)




Except as the the above link shows efforts to make them one and the same are tried:

"The irrepressible Prodigal Son, Theudas, was in his prime between 4 BC and 6 AD. He was head of the Egyptian Therapeuts, whose customs were described with admiration by Philo in his essay The Contemplative Life. " ... "Theudas met his end in March, 44 AD. Josephus, writing in Rome in the 70's and relying on earlier written records, knew of him under that name only from a document recording the troubles in the court of the Agrippas"

Another source claims Acts got the order wrong and its Theudas is the same is the same as the one in Josephus. The fact people make such jumps in logic shows how desperate they are to make some sense out of the fragmentary material we have.

The Theudas in Acts is the Theudas in Josephus. When you compare the sequence of events between acts and Josephus, it's apparent that the Author of Acts was relying on Josephus, but misunderstood or deliberately changed the timeline.

I know of one theory hypothesis (yes Eisenman again, sorry) that takes this even further and suggests that "Theudas" is somehow a corruption of Judas-Thomas. Which apparently means Judas the twin. Possibly the "Jude" who is one of the brothers of Jesus. This same guy might also be Didymus-Thomas which is a silly name meaning "Twin-Twin" who supposedly wrote the Gospel of Thomas.

I am nowhere near qualified enough to know how plausible this little piece of Eiseman's idea is.

 

[maximara]

The Theudas in Acts is the Theudas in Josephus. When you compare the sequence of events between acts and Josephus, it's apparent that the Author of Acts was relying on Josephus, but misunderstood or deliberately changed the timeline.

Actually there is NOTHING to suggest they are the same Theudas (which in Greek seems to mean 'gift from God')

Here is what Acts 5:36-37 (KJV) actually says:

"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.

After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed."

Now compare this to Josephus' account:

"It came to pass, while Cuspius Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain charlatan, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the Jordan river; 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. 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. After falling upon them unexpectedly, they slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem." (Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98)

Note how vague the Acts passage is. Other then 'yet other messiah-prophet-whatever leading his followers to their deaths' and the similarity in name there is NOTHING to connect the Theudas in Josephus to the one in Acts.

It is akin to saying the Theophilus addressed in Luke must be Theophilus, Patriarch of Antioch (c150CE) or Pope Theophilus of Alexandria (4th century) and therefore Luke could not be written before these men. Yes it is nonsensical but it is the SAME argument used to connect the Theudas being referenced.

 

[Brainache]

Actually there is NOTHING to suggest they are the same Theudas (which in Greek seems to mean 'gift from God')

Odd that a Jewish Messiah figure should give himself a Greek religious name. Don't you think?

Here is what Acts 5:36-37 (KJV) actually says:

"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.

After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed."

OK yes, that is a quote from Gamaliel the Priest. Someone has put these events in the wrong order.

Now compare this to Josephus' account:

"It came to pass, while Cuspius Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain charlatan, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the Jordan river; 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. 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. After falling upon them unexpectedly, they slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem." (Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98)

Note how vague the Acts passage is. Other then 'yet other messiah-prophet-whatever leading his followers to their deaths' and the similarity in name there is NOTHING to connect the Theudas in Josephus to the one in Acts.

So what does Josephus say about this uprising led by "Theudas" that happened before Judas The Galilean led the first Jewish revolt against the Herodians?

Might be the kind of thing he would mention, since he goes on and on about Judas the Galilean starting this new idea of kicking foreigners out and preparing for the Messiah of Daniel etc. Josephus certainly doesn't mention any Messianic Pretenders before Judas TG.

It is akin to saying the Theophilus addressed in Luke must be Theophilus, Patriarch of Antioch (c150CE) or Pope Theophilus of Alexandria (4th century) and therefore Luke could not be written before these men. Yes it is nonsensical but it is the SAME argument used to connect the Theudas being referenced.

Not really. First I didn't say that this must be true, I just said it was part of Eisenman's idea and that it is interesting. I still think it might be true though.

 

[maximara]

Odd that a Jewish Messiah figure should give himself a Greek religious name. Don't you think?

Even though "Theudas" can be read in Greek as 'gift of God' its origins are thought to come from a Semitic homophone that means “flowing with water"

I would like to point out that Yeshua (Jesus) comes from the Hebrew word meaning "to rescue" or "to deliver" and as demonstrated by Josephus there are over 20 people with this name.

In fact, some Etymologists say that Yeshua means YHWH saves, YHWH (is) salvation, YHWH (is) a saving-cry, YHWH (is) a cry-for-saving, YHWH (is) a cry-for-help, YHWH (is) my help, etc

So what does Josephus say about this uprising led by "Theudas" that happened before Judas The Galilean led the first Jewish revolt against the Herodians?

And what does Acts 6 say about Simon of Peraea or Athronges both of whom are also before Judas The Galilean led the first Jewish revolt against the Herodians, hmmm?

Seriously, Josephus likely mentioned those trouble makers that were known beyond the local level. If Acts' Theudas was a local trouble maker who came to a quick end Josephus may not have known of him.

"But since it is in the spirit of truth that we examine each passage, we shall mention that there was a certain Theudas among the Jews before the birth of Christ, who gave himself out as some great one, after whose death his deluded followers were completely dispersed." (Origen (248) Contra Celsum 1.57) But Origen often referenced Josephus in this work as well and would have certainly not brought up Theudas unless it was known that there were two Theudas.

More over Gamaliel died c52 CE so the Theudas of Josephus would have been very recent, so why mention him in the same sentence with someone whose misadventure was well over 40 years ago?

 

[Brainache]

Even though "Theudas" can be read in Greek as 'gift of God' its origins are thought to come from a Semitic homophone that means “flowing with water"

I would like to point out that Yeshua (Jesus) comes from the Hebrew word meaning "to rescue" or "to deliver" and as demonstrated by Josephus there are over 20 people with this name.

In fact, some Etymologists say that Yeshua means YHWH saves, YHWH (is) salvation, YHWH (is) a saving-cry, YHWH (is) a cry-for-saving, YHWH (is) a cry-for-help, YHWH (is) my help, etc

Yeah, I get that. That's what the whole Jesus myth business is all about.

And what does Acts 6 say about Simon of Peraea or Athronges both of whom are also before Judas The Galilean led the first Jewish revolt against the Herodians, hmmm?

Seriously, Josephus likely mentioned those trouble makers that were known beyond the local level. If Acts' Theudas was a local trouble maker who came to a quick end Josephus may not have known of him.

"But since it is in the spirit of truth that we examine each passage, we shall mention that there was a certain Theudas among the Jews before the birth of Christ, who gave himself out as some great one, after whose death his deluded followers were completely dispersed." (Origen (248) Contra Celsum 1.57) But Origen often referenced Josephus in this work as well and would have certainly not brought up Theudas unless it was known that there were two Theudas.

More over Gamaliel died c52 CE so the Theudas of Josephus would have been very recent, so why mention him in the same sentence with someone whose misadventure was well over 40 years ago?

I don't think you are going to get very far putting so much confidence in the historical accuracy of the book of Acts.

The whole thing is pretty complicated. Eisenman has written thousands of pages of closely reasoned arguments in support of his idea, I'm not up to that, so if you want to learn more of the particulars of his work, I suggest you buy one of his books and start there.

Or go to Youtube and watch his series of lectures on The DSS or the Historical Jesus. If you can follow him over all the background noise and his rambling asides, the videos are quite informative.


Like I said, I'm not overly concerned about whether or not this idea is right, I was just throwing it out there as a point of interest. Pointing out that there are serious Academics who don't necessarily agree with your assessment.

 

[JaysonR]

Actually, Simon of Peraea isn't just in Acts, so the dating issue isn't a big problem.
Simon appears in Josephus as well as the Jeselsohn Stone.

 

[maximara]

Actually, Simon of Peraea isn't just in Acts, so the dating issue isn't a big problem.
Simon appears in Josephus as well as the Jeselsohn Stone.

Uh, Simon of Peraea is NOT in Acts as Simon of Peraea died c4 BCE and Acts is about the Early Church ie after Christ's crucifixion c36 CE so the Simon in Acts 8:9-24 is a totally different Simon.

This comment proves my point about people who because they see the same name they jump to the conclusion it must be the same person. There is no reason to assume the "Theudas" reference in Acts is the same in Josephus with the wrong date applied especially as Gamaliel does NOT mention Simon of Peraea or Athronges in Acts 6...Why mention two trouble makers nearly 40 years apart especially when one of them should be of recent memory?

More over "Theudas's movement comes after the time when Gamaliel is speaking" (Talbert, Charles H. Reading Lucke-Acts in Its Mediterranean Milieu Brill pg 200) So there are temporal clues in Acts that sets the date of Gamaliel announcement as being before 44 CE. In fact, some pro-HJ works put Gamaliel little speech between 27-33 CE...which not only knocks the Josephus Theudas idea on the head, shove it in a garbage can, and kick it down several flights of stairs but creates load of problems for the Jesus timeline. There are times I wonder if apologist scholars even realize they are spouting more nonsense then the average Wonderland-Looking Glass character.

Another idea suggested is the "Theudas" mentioned in Acts is an alias of Matthias, son of Margalothus (Antiquities 17.269-270). Temporally it fits and if it was a local alias name then Josephus wouldn't have known about it.

 

[Brainache]

Uh, Simon of Peraea is NOT in Acts as Simon of Peraea died c4 BCE and Acts is about the Early Church ie after Christ's crucifixion c36 CE so the Simon in Acts 8:9-24 is a totally different Simon.

This comment proves my point about people who because they see the same name they jump to the conclusion it must be the same person. There is no reason to assume the "Theudas" reference in Acts is the same in Josephus with the wrong date applied especially as Gamaliel does NOT mention Simon of Peraea or Athronges in Acts 6...Why mention two trouble makers nearly 40 years apart especially when one of them should be of recent memory?

Because whoever wrote that passage was trying to conceal the fact that "Theudas" who was an associate Jesus had nothing to do with Judas The Galilean's cult of Zealotry. Zealot was a dirty word to the Acts Author, can't have people thinking our Lord and Saviour, Son of the Blessed Virgin, King Of Heaven was associated even remotely to that group. They work tirelessly to that end throughout the book, up until the "We" document drops the ball and lets James call his people "Zealots for the Law".

More over "Theudas's movement comes after the time when Gamaliel is speaking" (Talbert, Charles H. Reading Lucke-Acts in Its Mediterranean Milieu Brill pg 200) So there are temporal clues in Acts that sets the date of Gamaliel announcement as being before 44 CE. In fact, some pro-HJ works put Gamaliel little speech between 27-33 CE...which not only knocks the Josephus Theudas idea on the head, shove it in a garbage can, and kick it down several flights of stairs but creates load of problems for the Jesus timeline. There are times I wonder if apologist scholars even realize they are spouting more nonsense then the average Wonderland-Looking Glass character.

You do realise that the speech was written a long way away in space and time from any actual speech given by Gamaliel, don't you? There was no one there with a recording device. Acts was written decades later possibly in Greece somewhere. Why do you think a speech like that proves anything beyond what the Author wanted to put in Gamaliel's mouth at that point of the story? And even then it might have been interfered with later.

Fancy a cup of tea?

Another idea suggested is the "Theudas" mentioned in Acts is an alias of Matthias, son of Margalothus (Antiquities 17.269-270). Temporally it fits and if it was a local alias name then Josephus wouldn't have known about it.

People can keep coming up with these things forever. I just pointed out that one possible answer was that he was a Brother of Jesus called Judas-Thomas.
That's all, no need to get all upset about it. It's just one slight possibility amongst other slight possibilities.

 

[JaysonR]

That was a typo. It was supposed to be coy and read, "Actually, Simon of Peraea just isn't in Acts...", instead of "isn't just in".
Then I had intended the part that followed to be the references that do exist.

It was a bad joke.