Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 4

In this chapter, Troki recalls a challenge given to him by a Lutheran. The Lutheran quotes Acts 5.

    But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”
(Acts 5:34-39)

Since the movement started by these apostles has flourished for 2,000 years, the Lutheran argued, it must be from God. Troki responded that there is no record from the Rabbis regarding Gamaliel having ever said this. Many anti-missionaries will then conclude that Gamaliel had not spoken this at all, but even if he had spoken this, it was not in the spirit of prophecy.

For the most part I agree with Troki here. Gamaliel was not a prophet, and the size of a movement is no indication of its truth. However, I do have two points of contention:

1. Gamaliel did say this.
2. Gamaliel was a major Pharisaic authority figure in his time. If he spoke this, that is even more reason why the Jewish people need to consider seriously that the claims of Jesus and his apostles may very well be correct.

Gamaliel is quoted in Tractate Avot of the Mishnah, saying "Every dispute which is for the glory of God shall at last be established, and that which is not for the glory of God shall not be." This is parallel to the quote in Acts, so it would be in character for Gamaliel to say this. It contrasts with Paul's attitude because students do not always agree with their instructors. Paul was a Shammaiite Pharisee while Gamaliel was a Hillelite. The latter had a more gentle attitude toward heresy while the former were much more strict in their enforcement.

The Book of Acts was written around the year 62, given its abrupt ending and lack of details regarding the death of Paul, although more skeptical scholars will date it as late as 80. The Mishnah, on the other hand, is from the year 220. Both contain earlier oral traditions, but Acts is about 160 years earlier, and within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses to the life of Hillel. This is why professional historians of antiquity will almost always consider Acts to be a vastly superior historical source than the Mishnah.

A. Lukyn Williams also offers his opinion on the matter: 
"Observe also that the argument of R. Gamaliel, to call it by his name for convenience sake, was never intended to be conclusive. It was the prudent advice of a lawyer to do nothing rashly, but to wait and see what God's providence should determine. Yet surely it is not wrong for us Christians to urge this argument with superlatively increased force now. No one can deny that God's providence has been on the side of Christianity, or that His providence has been exerted in behalf of Christianity in a very different manner from that in which it was shown in the case of Heathenism and of Mohammedanism. Had idol-worship any opposition? We have no reason to suppose so. Did Mohammedanism use the same peaceful weapons that the Christians of the first four centuries employed when they were conquering the Roman world for their Master? We all know that Mohammed himself enforced his religion at the point of the sword, and that his followers always imitated his example. R. Isaac surely forgets the poverty and lowly origin of the first preachers of the Gospel, the countless persecutions they endured, and their faithfulness under distresses of all kinds, when he ventures to compare the success of idol-worship and of Mohammedanism with that of the religion of Jesus. Its triumph in spite of so many obstacles, by the use of only spiritual weapons, raises a presumption in its favour that is wholly absent from those false religions with which he compares it"