Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Jax » Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:00 am

neilgodfrey wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:05 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:47 pm
Another thought. I keep running into little hints that Paul may be reliant upon Philo. For example:
Anyone who reads Philo will run across myriads of reminders of the NT writings, both gospels and epistles.
Which epistles are more prone to this I wonder.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Jax » Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:24 am

I should point out at this time that I am having trouble making my model of Paul as a member of the conflicts in Achaia and Macedonia work out with the letters as I currently have them laid out. A couple of questions come to mind.

1: Does anyone besides me have a problem accepting Philippians 3:2-4:9 as being authentic to Paul?

2: Why two Corinthian letters? The only other times that we have more than one letter to someplace or someone is 2 Thessalonians and the Timothy letters, both are suspect. Also both are monolithic as letters as opposed to the collections of smaller Corinthian letters.
It just makes me curious as to why someone would compile 1 Corinthians from smaller letters and then also compile 2 Corinthians from another batch of letters instead of just making one longer letter with everything.

As far as I know the only letters of Paul that are thought to be compilations are 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians. All thought to be authentic to Paul in their original form. How about Galatians? Are there any arguments for it being a compilation of smaller letters? Any of the other letters either by the pseudo Pauls or Paul or the other letters in the NT?

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6829
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:39 am

Jax wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:58 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:47 pm
Another thought. I keep running into little hints that Paul may be reliant upon Philo. For example:

Romans 1.22-23: 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the imperishable [ἀφθάρτου] God for an image in the form of perishable [φθαρτοῦ] man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. / 22 φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράνθησαν 23 καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν.

Philo, On the Life of Moses 2.32 §171: 171 And, when Moses saw them rushing forward as if starting from the goal in a race, he said, "Surely it is not with your bodies alone that you are hastening to come unto me, but you shall soon bear witness with your minds to your eagerness; let every one of you take a sword, and slay those men who have done things worthy of ten thousand deaths, who have forsaken the true God, and made for themselves false gods, of perishable [φθαρταῖς] and created substances, calling them by the name which belongs only to the uncreated and imperishable [ἀφθάρτου] God; let every one, I say, slay those men, whether it be his own kinsmen or his friends, looking upon nothing to be either friendship or kindred but the holy fellowship of good men."

I have not been actively collecting such instances, and I do not know how strong they are collectively, but I recall having run into a handful of them within recent memory. (This one came up on another thread for me tonight, so I thought I would mention it. To judge both from the scriptural parallels to Romans and from the subject matter of this work of Philo's, both authors are thinking of Egyptian religion, too, on top of the more obvious verbal and conceptual parallels.)

ETA: Ah, but I see that you have this section of Romans listed as a potential interpolation. I bet at least several of the possible Philonic parallels succumb to that list.
Thanks Ben, that was a very worthwhile observation. Had Romans 1:18-2:29 not been a possible interpolation you would have had a very strong flaw to point out. Actually, I wonder, how many other suspected interpolations in Paul as we are presented with the letters now, both authentic and pseudopigraphic, have Philonic language in them. It would be nice if we could spot a trend with this. At least timeline wise.
Some of my hazy memories of having found other parallels between Paul and Philo may actually derive from Colossians or Ephesians. I mean, I do not consider them Pauline, but sometimes when I am making lists of Pauline passages I will include the pseudepigraphical ones for the sake of completeness. I already know that Hebrews bears a lot of Philonic parallels, and is, in fact, often deemed to hail from Alexandria, but I only rarely lump that epistle in with the Paulines, despite its antique standing in that corpus, so I doubt Hebrews is the source of my memories on this point.

Something I remembered overnight is that the fleshly/spiritual contrast in Paul may derive from Philo, or may at least run parallel to Philo (I think strict dependence between Paul and Philo is one of those contested issues). My memories on this matter are very old, so I may have to look into it again if I get a chance.
I should point out at this time that I am having trouble making my model of Paul as a member of the conflicts in Achaia and Macedonia work out with the letters as I currently have them laid out. A couple of questions come to mind.

1: Does anyone besides me have a problem accepting Philippians 3:2-4:9 as being authentic to Paul?
Philippians 3.2-7 has always stuck out for me, simply because of its sudden thematic relation to Galatians and Romans. Not sure about the rest. What stands out for you? What are the issues?
2: Why two Corinthian letters? The only other times that we have more than one letter to someplace or someone is 2 Thessalonians and the Timothy letters, both are suspect. Also both are monolithic as letters as opposed to the collections of smaller Corinthian letters.
It just makes me curious as to why someone would compile 1 Corinthians from smaller letters and then also compile 2 Corinthians from another batch of letters instead of just making one longer letter with everything.
Good question. Maybe two independent compilations by different compilers? Maybe combining the two would have made the length unwieldy? Maybe an attempt to keep two letters in play because of 2 Corinthians 7.8? Then again, 1 Corinthians 5.9 apparently did not inspire a similar maneuver. Not sure.
As far as I know the only letters of Paul that are thought to be compilations are 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians. All thought to be authentic to Paul in their original form. How about Galatians? Are there any arguments for it being a compilation of smaller letters? Any of the other letters either by the pseudo Pauls or Paul or the other letters in the NT?
I do not recall a partition theory for Galatians.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Jax » Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:47 am

I am currently rereading Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Hundred-Ye ... 0879517204 in it he places Paul in the first century CE but being heavily influenced by the Essenes. If the Essenes were as militaristic in their language as some contend then perhaps this explains Paul's language as well.

The book is a worthwhile read at any rate. The author is very well informed.

Also, Ben, do you have a favorite English translation of 1 Clement that comes closest to the original Greek? Are there any in your opinion?

Lane

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6829
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:01 am

Jax wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:47 am
Also, Ben, do you have a favorite English translation of 1 Clement that comes closest to the original Greek? Are there any in your opinion?
I have not done a lot of comparing of translations for the Apostolic Fathers, but I tend to prefer the Ehrman translation from the Loeb series when I am posting on the forum, making adjustments as needed if I feel the Greek needs a more literal rendering; if I am being lazy (which is more often than I might like), I will just copy and paste whole extracts from the usual online sources, those extracts generally being the old Roberts & Donaldson translation; when I am working in BibleWorks I make do with what the program offers, which is also Roberts & Donaldson.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Jax » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:14 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:01 am
Jax wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:47 am
Also, Ben, do you have a favorite English translation of 1 Clement that comes closest to the original Greek? Are there any in your opinion?
I have not done a lot of comparing of translations for the Apostolic Fathers, but I tend to prefer the Ehrman translation from the Loeb series when I am posting on the forum, making adjustments as needed if I feel the Greek needs a more literal rendering; if I am being lazy (which is more often than I might like), I will just copy and paste whole extracts from the usual online sources, those extracts generally being the old Roberts & Donaldson translation; when I am working in BibleWorks I make do with what the program offers, which is also Roberts & Donaldson.
By any chance do you have a link to the Ehrman translation?

Thanks

Lane

P.S. Am getting to your points in the post above. Gotta hurry while the meds are still working. ;)

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Jax » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:17 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:39 am
Jax wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:58 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:47 pm
Another thought. I keep running into little hints that Paul may be reliant upon Philo. For example:

Romans 1.22-23: 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the imperishable [ἀφθάρτου] God for an image in the form of perishable [φθαρτοῦ] man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. / 22 φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράνθησαν 23 καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν.

Philo, On the Life of Moses 2.32 §171: 171 And, when Moses saw them rushing forward as if starting from the goal in a race, he said, "Surely it is not with your bodies alone that you are hastening to come unto me, but you shall soon bear witness with your minds to your eagerness; let every one of you take a sword, and slay those men who have done things worthy of ten thousand deaths, who have forsaken the true God, and made for themselves false gods, of perishable [φθαρταῖς] and created substances, calling them by the name which belongs only to the uncreated and imperishable [ἀφθάρτου] God; let every one, I say, slay those men, whether it be his own kinsmen or his friends, looking upon nothing to be either friendship or kindred but the holy fellowship of good men."

I have not been actively collecting such instances, and I do not know how strong they are collectively, but I recall having run into a handful of them within recent memory. (This one came up on another thread for me tonight, so I thought I would mention it. To judge both from the scriptural parallels to Romans and from the subject matter of this work of Philo's, both authors are thinking of Egyptian religion, too, on top of the more obvious verbal and conceptual parallels.)

ETA: Ah, but I see that you have this section of Romans listed as a potential interpolation. I bet at least several of the possible Philonic parallels succumb to that list.
Thanks Ben, that was a very worthwhile observation. Had Romans 1:18-2:29 not been a possible interpolation you would have had a very strong flaw to point out. Actually, I wonder, how many other suspected interpolations in Paul as we are presented with the letters now, both authentic and pseudopigraphic, have Philonic language in them. It would be nice if we could spot a trend with this. At least timeline wise.
Some of my hazy memories of having found other parallels between Paul and Philo may actually derive from Colossians or Ephesians. I mean, I do not consider them Pauline, but sometimes when I am making lists of Pauline passages I will include the pseudepigraphical ones for the sake of completeness. I already know that Hebrews bears a lot of Philonic parallels, and is, in fact, often deemed to hail from Alexandria, but I only rarely lump that epistle in with the Paulines, despite its antique standing in that corpus, so I doubt Hebrews is the source of my memories on this point.

Something I remembered overnight is that the fleshly/spiritual contrast in Paul may derive from Philo, or may at least run parallel to Philo (I think strict dependence between Paul and Philo is one of those contested issues). My memories on this matter are very old, so I may have to look into it again if I get a chance.
I should point out at this time that I am having trouble making my model of Paul as a member of the conflicts in Achaia and Macedonia work out with the letters as I currently have them laid out. A couple of questions come to mind.

1: Does anyone besides me have a problem accepting Philippians 3:2-4:9 as being authentic to Paul?
Philippians 3.2-7 has always stuck out for me, simply because of its sudden thematic relation to Galatians and Romans. Not sure about the rest. What stands out for you? What are the issues?
2: Why two Corinthian letters? The only other times that we have more than one letter to someplace or someone is 2 Thessalonians and the Timothy letters, both are suspect. Also both are monolithic as letters as opposed to the collections of smaller Corinthian letters.
It just makes me curious as to why someone would compile 1 Corinthians from smaller letters and then also compile 2 Corinthians from another batch of letters instead of just making one longer letter with everything.
Good question. Maybe two independent compilations by different compilers? Maybe combining the two would have made the length unwieldy? Maybe an attempt to keep two letters in play because of 2 Corinthians 7.8? Then again, 1 Corinthians 5.9 apparently did not inspire a similar maneuver. Not sure.
As far as I know the only letters of Paul that are thought to be compilations are 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians. All thought to be authentic to Paul in their original form. How about Galatians? Are there any arguments for it being a compilation of smaller letters? Any of the other letters either by the pseudo Pauls or Paul or the other letters in the NT?
I do not recall a partition theory for Galatians.
Finally got a chance to respond.
Some of my hazy memories of having found other parallels between Paul and Philo may actually derive from Colossians or Ephesians. I mean, I do not consider them Pauline, but sometimes when I am making lists of Pauline passages I will include the pseudepigraphical ones for the sake of completeness. I already know that Hebrews bears a lot of Philonic parallels, and is, in fact, often deemed to hail from Alexandria, but I only rarely lump that epistle in with the Paulines, despite its antique standing in that corpus, so I doubt Hebrews is the source of my memories on this point.

Something I remembered overnight is that the fleshly/spiritual contrast in Paul may derive from Philo, or may at least run parallel to Philo (I think strict dependence between Paul and Philo is one of those contested issues). My memories on this matter are very old, so I may have to look into it again if I get a chance.
Interesting. Makes me wonder if parallels with Philo might turn out to be a good indicator of later additions or pseudopigraphia in Paul and the other letters.

It occurs to me that the fleshy/spiritual contrasts in both Paul and Philo might derive from a common source of the Essenes.
Good question. Maybe two independent compilations by different compilers? Maybe combining the two would have made the length unwieldy? Maybe an attempt to keep two letters in play because of 2 Corinthians 7.8? Then again, 1 Corinthians 5.9 apparently did not inspire a similar maneuver. Not sure.
I think that your first answer may have merit. As far as I know 1 Clement only seems to know 1 Corinthians but not the second letter. Does this seem right to you?
I do not recall a partition theory for Galatians.
Stuart made mention of it a while back posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=82126

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Jax » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:38 am

Opps. Forgot about this question.
Philippians 3.2-7 has always stuck out for me, simply because of its sudden thematic relation to Galatians and Romans. Not sure about the rest. What stands out for you? What are the issues?
Really also just 3:2-7. The language in it just doesn't sound right to me.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6829
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:59 am

Jax wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:17 am
Good question. Maybe two independent compilations by different compilers? Maybe combining the two would have made the length unwieldy? Maybe an attempt to keep two letters in play because of 2 Corinthians 7.8? Then again, 1 Corinthians 5.9 apparently did not inspire a similar maneuver. Not sure.
I think that your first answer may have merit. As far as I know 1 Clement only seems to know 1 Corinthians but not the second letter. Does this seem right to you?
The editors of The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (1905) judged the following correspondence to the too weak to demonstrate dependence:

1 Clement 36.2-3: 2 Through this one we gaze into the heights of the heavens; through this one we behold [ένοπτριζόμεθα] the reflection of his perfect and superior countenance; through this one the eyes of our hearts have been opened; through this one our foolish and darkened understanding springs up into the light; through this one the Master has wished us to taste the knowledge of immortality. He is the radiance of his magnificence, as superior to the angels as he has inherited a more excellent name.

2 Corinthians 3.18: 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding [κατοπτριζόμενοι] as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

They also discussed the following correspondence:

1 Clement 5.5-6: 5 Because of jealousy and strife Paul pointed the way to the prize for endurance. 6 Seven times he bore chains; he was sent into exile and stoned; he served as a herald in both the East and the West; and he received the noble reputation for his faith.

2 Corinthians 11.23-27: 23 Are they servants of Christ? I speak as if insane. I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. 24 Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. 26 I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; 27 I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.

Partly because Clement includes that detail about bearing chains seven times, which cannot be sourced from Paul, the editors thought that he may have gotten his information from stories about Paul. Overall, the editors gave Clement's possible knowledge of 2 Corinthians their lowest possible rating: a D. The twin updates to that 1905 book, The Reception of the New Testament in the Fathers and Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Fathers, edited by Andrew Gregory and Christopher Tuckett, do not alter this picture so far as I can tell; in footnote 4 of page 10 of the second volume, in his chapter on Paul in Clement and Ignatius, Andreas Lindemann asserts that "we cannot say anything about the knowledge of 2 Corinthians (or its original parts)" by Clement.

And there is this:

1 Clement 47.1-2: 1 Take up the epistle of that blessed apostle, Paul. 2 What did he write to you at first, at the beginning of his proclamation of the gospel?

The fathers do not always say "first" or "second" epistle when they know more than one, but they often do, and Clement does not here.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Jax » Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:00 am

Well well well....

I may have been poorly informed. In a previous post in this thread I said..
or his (Paul's) use of military imagery and terminology, even to the point of referring to a coworker as a fellow soldier, even though a Jewish man in the 1st century would have very little opportunity to have been in a military (although I do concede that he could have had plenty of exposure to the Roman military as a civilian, perhaps as a tentmaker?).
It seems that this is not correct, that in fact a man from that area could have been indeed part of the Roman military complex in the 1st century CE in Judea. It seems that when Archelaus was exiled by Augustus in 6 CE the Romans simply took over the troops that Archelaus had inherited from his father Herod to be auxiliary cohorts for Judea. These auxiliary cohorts were composed of mostly Samarian troops but apparently also local citizens and .... wait for it..... Galations.
One thing most people tend to be unaware of is that the Roman soldiers in Judea were not legionaries but auxiliaries (although you were obviously aware of that already) who were members of the five infantry cohorts and one cavalry ala which had been recruited in Samaria by Herod the Great and had been taken into Roman service when Archelaus was removed from power in AD6. These soldiers would be likely to have had a rather Eastern look, which would be likely to have featured predominantly scale and mail armour and possibly quite a few conical helmets. There was also an Italian cohort, which may have been supernumerary to the six Samarian cohorts or which may alternatively have replaced one of them at some stage in the first quarter of the century. This cohort may have appeared more westernised, although if it was being resupplied with locally manufactured equipment it may also have begun to take on a fairly Eastern look.
from https://www.romanarmytalk.com/showthrea ... #pid279100

and
This is similar to a topic that has come up repeatedly on the board, concerning Roman troops in Judea in the Biblical period generally.

Coponius, like all the early Prefects, was of equestrian rank and therefore unable (it seems) to command legionary troops. Any soldiers he had with him would have been auxiliaries. It appears most likely from the limited evidence available that the early Roman administration 'inherited' the army of Herod, mostly Samarian troops, and reorganised them as several new cohorts perhaps under Roman officers. More details in this post, and supporting quotes a couple of posts down the thread.

A little later several more regular auxiliary cohorts were moved from Syria into the province. You can find more about them in these threads:

Garrison of Jerusalem AD30

Legion near Jerusalem at time of Jesus

Legions in Jerusalem under Pilate

The upshot of all this is that, aside from an expedition into Galilee in 5-4BC involving the legions from Syria, there were probably no legionary troops stationed in Judea prior to AD44-48 and/or the Jewish wars of the AD60s.
from https://www.romanarmytalk.com/showthrea ... #pid348266

The legions in Syria also seem to have used locals in their cohorts as well.

Shoot shoot shoot.

The reason for this seems to be, at least partly, because
But it might be interesting for you to know why there was no legion in Judaea prior to the Jewish War.

The province was one of those minor territories governed by equestrian prefects or (after Claudius) procurators. If a legion were to enter such a territory, the legionary commander (being a senator) would automatically outrank the governor (who was an equestrian) -- it seems that the Romans always avoided such a situation. The proof comes from Egypt, which was governed by a high-ranking equestrian, but which (for one reason or another) required the presence of legionary troops: the solution was to place the legions (uniquely) under the command of equestrian officers who would not outrank the provincial governor. Consequently, if a legion were to be ordered into Judaea, (a) this would require the express instruction of the emperor, and (b) the commander would become de facto governor.

Of course, this never happened until AD 66, when the (senatorial) governor of Syria was ordered to intervene in Judaea. By entering Judaea, he naturally became the de facto governor.
from https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/showt ... #pid297012

It still doesn't explain why Paul is writing to Roman military veteran colonies in Macedonia and Achaia but it surely invalidates my contention that Paul being part of the Roman military in the 1st century as being unlikely.

Oh well.

Post Reply