Paul's shadow in the gospels

[Ben C. Smith]

to Jax,

If this were true then why did they get the name for Illyria wrong by calling it Illyricum instead of Dalmatia which is what it was called after 10 CE. as seen by the naming of it in the 2nd century letter 1st Timothy?

Where are you getting that from? Illyricum was a Roman province from 27 BCE up to sometimes during the reign of Vespasian (69-79 AD). Later it got divided in two provinces: Dalmatia & Pannonia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyricum ... _province)
BTW, "Dalmatia" appears in 2 Timothy, not 1 Timothy.

Cordially, Bernard

Actually.

Vatinius, appointed by Caesar, was probably the first to have governed only Illyricum (45–43 BC), while Caesar had been proconsul of both Galliae and Illyricum (59–49 BC). After the Pannonian-Dalmatian rebellion in AD 9, Illyricum may have been divided into superius and inferius, but was oficially called Dalmatia and Pannonia probably not earlier than under Vespasian; after this division, no Roman province bore the name Illyricum.

From: The Roman Conquest of Illyricum (Dalmatia and Pannonia) and the Problem of the Northeastern Border of Italy by Marjeta Šašel Kos. Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7, 169-200, 2013 page 182 https://www.academia.edu/33216803/The_R ... r_of_Italy

Recall, though, that Marjeta Šašel Kos also points out that, even after the division into Upper and Lower Illyricum, even official inscriptions and historical accounts often called it just plain Illyricum. If inscriptions and histories can do that, it should not be hard for Paul to do it.

[Jax]

to Jax,

If this were true then why did they get the name for Illyria wrong by calling it Illyricum instead of Dalmatia which is what it was called after 10 CE. as seen by the naming of it in the 2nd century letter 1st Timothy?

Where are you getting that from? Illyricum was a Roman province from 27 BCE up to sometimes during the reign of Vespasian (69-79 AD). Later it got divided in two provinces: Dalmatia & Pannonia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyricum ... _province)
BTW, "Dalmatia" appears in 2 Timothy, not 1 Timothy.

Cordially, Bernard

Actually.

Vatinius, appointed by Caesar, was probably the first to have governed only Illyricum (45–43 BC), while Caesar had been proconsul of both Galliae and Illyricum (59–49 BC). After the Pannonian-Dalmatian rebellion in AD 9, Illyricum may have been divided into superius and inferius, but was oficially called Dalmatia and Pannonia probably not earlier than under Vespasian; after this division, no Roman province bore the name Illyricum.

From: The Roman Conquest of Illyricum (Dalmatia and Pannonia) and the Problem of the Northeastern Border of Italy by Marjeta Šašel Kos. Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7, 169-200, 2013 page 182 https://www.academia.edu/33216803/The_R ... r_of_Italy

Recall, though, that Marjeta Šašel Kos also points out that, even after the division into Upper and Lower Illyricum, even official inscriptions and historical accounts often called it just plain Illyricum. If inscriptions and histories can do that, it should not be hard for Paul to do it.

Oh I know, "grumble, grumble".

As I said, none of this is a given. This is why I really want someone to step up with a solid reference to the 1st century in Paul's letters, then finally I can dump this Paul in the 1st century BCE theory and find something worthwhile to do.

[Jax]

^ started that book Familia Caesaris: A Social Study of the Emperor's Freedmen and Slaves, by P. R. C. Weaver BTW. Thank you.

[Bernard Muller]

to Jax,
Outside 'Acts' that you reject whole, this is what I already proposed (and some new stuff):
1)

And James the brother of the Lord in 'Galatians' would not be the same man as James, the brother of Jesus called Christ, in Josephus' Antiquities.

I suppose you reject that because of possible interpolation or alternative interpretation. But if it is true, and Paul operated in the 1st cent. BC, that James would have an exceptional longevity (and so Paul).
Actually, Gal 1:17-19 & 2 Cor 11:32 say that Paul met that "James" 3 years or less (up to a few weeks) after he escaped from Damascus. Then, an "Aretas" had an etnarch in this city. If that was Aretas III, that would put Paul active before 61 BC.
If that was Aretas IV, that would put Paul active no sooner than 9 BC.

2) And there is Achaia which started to become a Roman province in 27 BC, after being extracted from Macedonia.
Paul stressed the existence of these two provinces, side by side (Ro 15:26, 16:5; 1 Co 16:5, 16:15; 2Co 9:2, 11:10; 1 Th 1:7, 1:8).
Corinth was destroyed up to 44 BC and started to be rebuilt then.
So Paul could not be active before 44 BC, or even before 27 BC. That would restrict your 1st cent. BC Paul to the end of the 1st cent. BC.

3) Ben's argument about "Caesar household" has a lot of merit for putting Paul active after 27 BC.

4) Outside Christian authors, first acknowledgment of Christians' existence is placed during the reign of Nero by Roman historians and not before. Even if according to Paul's epistles, and according to you, there were Christians all over the Roman empire in Paul's times (at least from the Levant & present day Turkey to Rome) in the 1st cent. BC.

5) And despite this alleged existence of 1st cent. BC Paul & Christians (that knowledge could not be lost one century later), "Luke" dared to put Paul face to face with Gallio in Corinth, along with Jews of this city, when the later was governor of Achaia in 51-52 AD.

Besides that, I cannot think of anything else, except going in depth in some area, such as the great influence of Philo of Alexandria on Paul's Christology & theology. But "illyricum" does not help your cause.

Cordially, Bernard

[Irish1975]

As far as my case for a pre-BC Paul goes, once it is realized that nothing in his letters can be shown to point to his having written them in the 1st century, certain anomalies in the letters seem to make more sense in a mid to late 1st century BCE context. Anomalies such as why he is writing to and talking about "fellow soldiers" in his letters to areas like Corinth and Philippi and Troyas which are Roman military settlement colonies of the late 1st century BCE. Why he is in Macadonia, Greece and Illyricum at all. Why he has plans to go to Spain. Why he calls Illyricum "Illyricum" instead of "Dalmatia and Pannonia" like whoever that was pretending to be him that wrote 1 Timothy does.

If you would like more of this let me know and I'll start a thread on it and we can chew it over.

Lane

Have been thinking about your hypothesis. I think a fresh thread with your position clearly stated would be good.

1) Does "Troyas" = Troy? What is Paul's connection with Troy/Ilium?
2) Did Hellenistic Jews, particularly a pharisee such as Paul, serve in the Roman army in the late republic/early empire?
3) I know the "fellow soldier" reference in Philippians. But you also say he wrote to soldiers?
4) Are you suggesting he had been a soldier, but during his writing career was a tentmaker?

I like that you ask why he was all over the Greek world at all. No one ever explains that. It's some wondrous effect of the resurrection faith is all that Christian and post-Christian scholars ever come up with.

This hypothesis gets at something critical about Paul: his relation to Roman authority.

[Jax]

to Jax,
Outside 'Acts' that you reject whole, this is what I already proposed (and some new stuff):
1)

And James the brother of the Lord in 'Galatians' would not be the same man as James, the brother of Jesus called Christ, in Josephus' Antiquities.

I suppose you reject that because of possible interpolation or alternative interpretation. But if it is true, and Paul operated in the 1st cent. BC, that James would have an exceptional longevity (and so Paul).
Actually, Gal 1:17-19 & 2 Cor 11:32 say that Paul met that "James" 3 years or less (up to a few weeks) after he escaped from Damascus. Then, an "Aretas" had an etnarch in this city. If that was Aretas III, that would put Paul active before 61 BC.
If that was Aretas IV, that would put Paul active no sooner than 9 BC.

2) And there is Achaia which started to become a Roman province in 27 BC, after being extracted from Macedonia.
Paul stressed the existence of these two provinces, side by side (Ro 15:26, 16:5; 1 Co 16:5, 16:15; 2Co 9:2, 11:10; 1 Th 1:7, 1:8).
Corinth was destroyed up to 44 BC and started to be rebuilt then.
So Paul could not be active before 44 BC, or even before 27 BC. That would restrict your 1st cent. BC Paul to the end of the 1st cent. BC.

3) Ben's argument about "Caesar household" has a lot of merit for putting Paul active after 27 BC.

4) Outside Christian authors, first acknowledgment of Christians' existence is placed during the reign of Nero by Roman historians and not before. Even if according to Paul's epistles, and according to you, there were Christians all over the Roman empire in Paul's times (at least from the Levant & present day Turkey to Rome) in the 1st cent. BC.

5) And despite this alleged existence of 1st cent. BC Paul & Christians (that knowledge could not be lost one century later), "Luke" dared to put Paul face to face with Gallio in Corinth, along with Jews of this city, when the later was governor of Achaia in 51-52 AD.

Besides that, I cannot think of anything else, except going in depth in some area, such as the great influence of Philo of Alexandria on Paul's Christology & theology. But "illyricum" does not help your cause.

Cordially, Bernard

Illyricum is a wash. It is inconclusive to a 1st century as well as a 1st century BCE Paul.
But even so, it needs to be vetted and possibly eliminated from consideration as a 1st century only reference. Which is what we are doing here. Without anything that anchors Paul's letters to the 1st century exclusively, we are left with a huge range of possible date ranges, from Aretas III in the early 1st century BCE to the late 2nd century and perhaps later. On the plus side we make a 2nd century origin of the letters less likely. As shown by the Dalmatian versus Illyricum reference in 2 Timothy.

BTW, I am very interested in your take on "the great influence of Philo of Alexandria on Paul's Christology & theology". Please feel free to PM me on this if you don't want to repeat earlier material here.

5) And despite this alleged existence of 1st cent. BC Paul & Christians (that knowledge could not be lost one century later), "Luke" dared to put Paul face to face with Gallio in Corinth, along with Jews of this city, when the later was governor of Achaia in 51-52 AD.

So? Luke is writing a story (probably as much as 100 years after Gallio and perhaps as much as 200 years after a mid 1st century BCE Paul). Luke also dared to put a literary construct face to face with Pilate in Judea. Where is this account of Gallio in Paul's letters?
When we deviate from Paul's letters for information about Paul where do we end? 2 Timothy? Paul and Thecla? Other? Or do you consider everything in our current NT to be the absolute word of God handed down, unchanged, to us in our present day?

3) Ben's argument about "Caesar household" has a lot of merit for putting Paul active after 27 BC.

Ben included links to material that I am currently studying (thank you Ben). But even if it turns out that the phrase "Caesar's household" isn't a mention of the household of Julius Caesar but rather the households of Augustus and beyond we still have the problem that 27 BCE is still in the 1st century BCE.

2) And there is Achaia which started to become a Roman province in 27 BC, after being extracted from Macedonia.

Achaia was distinct from Macedonia before 27 BCE. It simply became a Senatorial province versus the property of Augustus at that time. And again. 27 BCE is still 1st century BCE.

If we allow Acts and the Josephus reference then game over. Aretas III is not a game killer though.

[Bernard Muller]

to Jax,

BTW, I am very interested in your take on "the great influence of Philo of Alexandria on Paul's Christology & theology". Please feel free to PM me on this if you don't want to repeat earlier material here.

It's a bit complicated, but I covered that in two of my webpages: http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html and http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html
Together, they are much shorter than a book, but of course, you are going to object to many of my observations. But if you can go through that, that will bring you to the core of the matter: Paul & Philo of Alexandria.
BTW, the influence of Philo of Alexandria' notions on Paul is something which is commonly accepted by critical scholars.

So? Luke is writing a story (probably as much as 100 years after Gallio and perhaps as much as 200 years after a mid 1st century BCE Paul)

I do not think it is that long, but around 35 years.
Dating of gLuke: http://historical-jesus.info/62.html
Dating of Acts: http://historical-jesus.info/63.html
Also about Acts: http://historical-jesus.info/75.html & http://historical-jesus.info/76.html
About Acts & Paul: http://historical-jesus.info/64.html

Cordially, Bernard

[DCHindley]

As far as my case for a pre-BC Paul goes, once it is realized that nothing in his letters can be shown to point to his having written them in the 1st century, certain anomalies in the letters seem to make more sense in a mid to late 1st century BCE context. Anomalies such as why he is writing to and talking about "fellow soldiers" in his letters to areas like Corinth and Philippi and Troyas which are Roman military settlement colonies of the late 1st century BCE. Why he is in Macadonia, Greece and Illyricum at all. Why he has plans to go to Spain. Why he calls Illyricum "Illyricum" instead of "Dalmatia and Pannonia" like whoever that was pretending to be him that wrote 1 Timothy does.

Have been thinking about your hypothesis. I think a fresh thread with your position clearly stated would be good.

1) Does "Troyas" = Troy? What is Paul's connection with Troy/Ilium?
2) Did Hellenistic Jews, particularly a pharisee such as Paul, serve in the Roman army in the late republic/early empire?
3) I know the "fellow soldier" reference in Philippians. But you also say he wrote to soldiers?
4) Are you suggesting he had been a soldier, but during his writing career was a tentmaker?

I like that you ask why he was all over the Greek world at all. No one ever explains that. It's some wondrous effect of the resurrection faith is all that Christian and post-Christian scholars ever come up with.

This hypothesis gets at something critical about Paul: his relation to Roman authority.

1) Don't think so. The whole matter of the destruction of Troy was a long ago time previous, so a town with a similar sounding name was either coincidence or just a guess made by the town's founders.

2) Yes. Judeans were exempt from universal conscription, but could serve in national units maintained by the tetrarchs of Judean settled areas, or in special units established by the Parthians in Mesopotamia. In the latter case, some of these Jews had even migrated towards the Judean homeland after they were discharged or their units disbanded (or they just went AWOL and left). Herod Philip inherited this band of soldiers, and he and Herod Antipas, and later king Agrippa, had Judean units of their armies. How they worked out the details of ritual observance while in army service is not certain, but probably resembles the concessions granted to Haredi (Orthodox/observant) units in the modern Israeli army, not a large force in themselves but they existed.

In either the revised ET of Schuerer's History of the Jewish People or Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha there is a story about a Judean soldier in a Roman Auxiliary unit who seemed as rough and tumble, and non-observant, as any modern soldier could be.

A on-observant Judean could enlist in a Roman unit, though. Usually Auxiliary but I suppose a legionary units as well under some circumstances. Tiberius Julius Alexander, a Judean related to Philo and the Alabarch in charge of Alexandrian Judeans, rose through the ranks of in the Roman army and was appointed a Prefect in Egypt later over the newly conquered Judea as well. He was not himself observant, apparently.

Herod, his father and his brothers, were all Roman procurators - and hence Roman citizenship - and had Roman Auxiliary units in their command, even though technically subject to the Judean ethnarch, Hyrcanus II, who himself may not have had an army (all mercenaries and/or Roman units commanded by Herod's kin). Hyrcanus, whether he did or did not, command any forces (other than temple or Jerusalem city police), was also a Roman citizen. When Aristobolus II allied himself with the Roman faction opposing the ones for whom Herod was employed, he was put in charge of a couple Roman Legions, so must also have had Roman citizenship. Herod knew that if Aristobulus II's legions were successful against the Parthians, he would then turn them against him, and so he had soem of his Roman friends infiltrate the command structure and Aristobulus II tragically died from food poisoning.

Herod got a report that such a former Parthian unit of mounted archers (these were such skilled soldiers that each man could turn completely around in his saddle to shoot behind him with incredible accuracy, even as the horse was running top speed - the "Parthian shot") migrating through the region of Batanea-Trachonitis, and parlayed with them to make an offer they couldn't refuse: In exchange for acting as the governors/police of the region and managing the collection and transport of tolls charged to traders whose caravans went through that area, the region was exempted from all taxation. Herod got relief from bandit raids on trading caravans, and an ensured revenue stream from the tolls and duties charged on trade goods, and they got freedom from taxation. But they were definitely Jews (here, I use the term "Jews" because it was only in the Roman empire that all persons of Judean ethnicity were treated as a nation without borders, so these Parthians were, well, Parthians of Judean ethnicity, not technically Judeans).

3) I think that military terminology pervaded the language and culture, so I don't think that just seeing use of terms for military equipment means he was speaking to soldiers. There were likely a number of discharged soldiers among both Greek and Roman residents of any one area, and they talk in the market or while doing whatever they do for a living, and these act as patrons for local-yokels or tenants or as local officials, and pass on the terminology.

4) Once you put in your 20 years, you were discharged and received a cash settlement or sometimes plots of land, which they could farm themselves or hire tenants to farm for them for rent, or start a business. Even army units have quartermasters, who move ordinance around and prepare the food and erect tents and such. Then again, there were surely clients who patronized the Romans in charge, acting as sub-contractors.

DCH

[Jax]

As far as my case for a pre-BC Paul goes, once it is realized that nothing in his letters can be shown to point to his having written them in the 1st century, certain anomalies in the letters seem to make more sense in a mid to late 1st century BCE context. Anomalies such as why he is writing to and talking about "fellow soldiers" in his letters to areas like Corinth and Philippi and Troyas which are Roman military settlement colonies of the late 1st century BCE. Why he is in Macadonia, Greece and Illyricum at all. Why he has plans to go to Spain. Why he calls Illyricum "Illyricum" instead of "Dalmatia and Pannonia" like whoever that was pretending to be him that wrote 1 Timothy does.

If you would like more of this let me know and I'll start a thread on it and we can chew it over.

Lane

Have been thinking about your hypothesis. I think a fresh thread with your position clearly stated would be good.

1) Does "Troyas" = Troy? What is Paul's connection with Troy/Ilium?
2) Did Hellenistic Jews, particularly a pharisee such as Paul, serve in the Roman army in the late republic/early empire?
3) I know the "fellow soldier" reference in Philippians. But you also say he wrote to soldiers?
4) Are you suggesting he had been a soldier, but during his writing career was a tentmaker?

I like that you ask why he was all over the Greek world at all. No one ever explains that. It's some wondrous effect of the resurrection faith is all that Christian and post-Christian scholars ever come up with.

This hypothesis gets at something critical about Paul: his relation to Roman authority.

Sorry. My bad. It is Troas, no "y". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Troas
Paul mentions it in 2 Corinthians 2:12-13 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV and it was a colony started under Augustus, Colonia Alexandria Augusta Troas, most likely to settle some of his military veterans.

Hellenistic Jews most certainly were fighters, good ones too according to accounts. I have no information concerning pharisees per se but Jews fought on the side of the Romans in numerous conflicts, especially in the 1st century BCE.

3) I know the "fellow soldier" reference in Philippians. But you also say he wrote to soldiers?

That Paul is writing to fellow soldiers is I believe implied in the Philippians passage.

4) Are you suggesting he had been a soldier, but during his writing career was a tentmaker?

No. Paul never makes any mention of being a tentmaker. That is all later tradition.

He may have been a beastmaster at some point though "If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."" 1 Corinthians 15:32 http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-32.htm
Interesting to think about. Also note the militaristic quip at the end of that quote.

Paul uses quite a few military metaphors in his letters and aside from him and the authors trying to write letters in his name I know of no other language like it in the NT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testa ... _metaphors

I like that you ask why he was all over the Greek world at all. No one ever explains that. It's some wondrous effect of the resurrection faith is all that Christian and post-Christian scholars ever come up with.

If Paul is part of the conflicts taking place there in the 1st century BCE and has no easy way to get back to the Levant then it makes perfect sense.

Anyway, as per your request, I will happily start a thread on this subject.

I will call it "Paul Without Acts".

Lane

[Jax]

Hey Irish1975 here it is. Look forward to your imput. viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3889