Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by John2 » Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:19 pm

Paul never refers to Jesus returning; only coming, as in a first time.

Isn't a return implied by what he says in 1 Cor. 15:20-44?

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man ... But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him ... But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies ... So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable ... it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

I think what Paul means by "when he comes" is when Jesus comes in his spiritual body, the one that was raised after his "natural body" was sown. This is because, as he says in 15:50-51, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," and for this reason even the living will have to "be changed, in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Jax » Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:21 pm

[quote=Jax post_id=101691 time=1569533523 user_id=7333
I admire your intellectual honesty.
Higher praise I will never receive!

Thank you Ben! :)

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Jax » Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:25 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:54 pm

Do the gospels refer to Jesus returning?
No. As far as I know that is later tradition.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7847
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:54 pm

Jax wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:25 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:54 pm

Do the gospels refer to Jesus returning?
No. As far as I know that is later tradition.
I suspect that the language of the advent of the Lord was stereotyped from before two advents were imagined and then carried over.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Jax » Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:04 am

I'm Back! :)

While Paul being part of Pompey's forces in Illyricum seems problematic as reported in the posts above posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=101690 a second opportunity presents itself. From 35-33 BCE Octavian went to war with Illyricum.

If indeed 2 Corinthians 1:8-11 is a reference to Anthony's Parthian war in 37 BCE and as we have no reference to a Armenian war of 35-34 BCE by Paul, it is possible that Paul could have been part of Octavian's Illyricum war, prompting his statement in Romans 15:19 "in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of God’s Spirit; so that from Jerusalem, and around as far as to Illyricum, I have fully preached the Good News of Christ" right before his travel plans in 15:22-24 "Therefore also I was hindered these many times from coming to you, but now, no longer having any place in these regions, and having these many years a longing to come to you, whenever I travel to Spain, I will come to you. For I hope to see you on my journey, and to be helped on my way there by you, if first I may enjoy your company for a while".
If Romans 15:24 is a reference to the Cantabrian wars of 29-19 BCE and 2 Corinthians 1:8-11 was written after 37 BCE and before 35-33 BCE then perhaps we could expect to find some kind of reference to the battle of Actium in Romans also.

Something to look for anyway.

Lane

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Jax » Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:21 pm

Actually it occurs to me that a reference to Actium might possibly be in the other smaller letters that make up 2 Corinthians as well.

7: 2 Corinthians 1:1-2:13 and 7:5-16.
8: 2 Corinthians 2:14-7:4. Without 6:14-7:1
9: 2 Corinthians 8:1-24.
10: 2 Corinthians 9:1-15.
11: 2 Corinthians 10-13.
From posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=100479

If 2 Corinthians 1:1-2:13 with 7:5-16 was written after 37 BCE, after Anthony's Parthian war, then the other letters could have been written at any time between 37 BCE and 29 BCE (the possible Cantabrian wars mention of Romans 15:24).

This is very exciting!

Lane

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Jax » Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:10 am

Jax wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:58 pm
It pains me to report that my theory of Paul being an auxiliary member of Pompey's army against Caesar, is that he would probably also have been at the battle of Pharsalus.
According to this paper anyway https://www.academia.edu/19860273/48_BC ... _Pharsalus Caesar told his men, while mopping up, to spare the opposing Roman soldiers but to kill the auxiliary troops. It appears that the Romans despised the auxiliary soldiers and would have been pretty brutal with them. While some undoubtedly escaped, the majority would probably have been killed or enslaved. Also, it seems to me anyway, that it would be unlikely that Paul, had he been there, would remind Roman veterans later that he was one of the despised enemy.

Oh well.
Well time to update this misinformation.

From Cassius Dio book 41
62 1 Of Pompey's followers who were not destroyed on the spot some fled whithersoever they could, and others who were captured14 later on. Those of them who were soldiers of the line Caesar enrolled in his own legions, exhibiting no resentment. 2 Of the senators and knights, however, he put to death all whom he had previously captured and spared, except some whom his friends begged off; for he allowed each friend on this occasion to save one man. 3 The rest who had then for the first time fought against him he released, remarking: "Those have not wronged me who supported the cause of Pompey, their friend, without having received any benefit from me." 4 This same attitude he adopted toward the princes and the peoples who had assisted Pompey. He pardoned them all, bearing in mind that he himself was acquainted with none or almost none of them, whereas from his rival they had previously obtained many favours. 5 Indeed, he praised these far more than he did those who, after receiving favours from Pompey, had deserted him in the midst of dangers; 6 the former he could reasonably expect would be favourably disposed to him also, but as to the latter, no matter how anxious they seemed to be to please him in anything, he believed that, inasmuch as they had betrayed their friend in this p109 crisis they would, on occasion, not spare him either. 63 1 A proof of his feeling is that he spared Sadalus the Thracian and Deiotarus the Galatian, who had been in the battle, and Tarcondimotus, who was ruler of a portion of Cilicia and had been of the greatest assistance to Pompey in the matter of ships. 2 But what need is there to enumerate the rest who had sent auxiliaries, to whom also he granted pardon, merely exacting money from them? He did nothing else to them and took from them nothing else, though many had received numerous large gifts from Pompey, some long ago and some just at that time. 3 He did give a certain portion of Armenia that had belonged to Deiotarus, to Ariobarzanes, king of Cappadocia, yet in this he did not injure Deiotarus at all, but rather conferred an additional favour upon him. For he did not curtail his territory, but after occupying all of Armenia previously occupied by Pharnaces, he bestowed one part of it upon Ariobarzanes and another part upon Deiotarus. 4 These men, then, he treated in this wise. Pharnaces, on his side, made a plea that he had not assisted Pompey and therefore, in view of his behaviour, deserved to obtain pardon; but Caesar showed him no consideration, and furthermore reproached him for this very thing, that he had proved himself base and impious toward his benefactor. 5 Such humanity and uprightness did he show throughout to all those who had fought against him. At any rate, all the letters that were p111 found filed away in Pompey's chests which convicted any persons of good-will toward the latter or ill-will toward himself he neither read nor had copied, but burned them immediately, 6 in order not to be forced by what was in them to take several measures; and for this reason, if no other, one ought to hate the men who plotted against him. I make this statement with a particular purpose, since Marcus Brutus Caepio, who afterwards killed him, was not only captured by him but also spared.
Based on this account, the possibility of Paul being at Pharsalus (and hence Illyricum under Pompey) is once again a thing to be considered.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Jax » Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:49 am

It occurs to me also that while Paul would have had less opportunity to engage peoples from the Asian provence of Galatia in the mid 1st century CE, contact with them in the civil wars of the 1st century BCE would have been much greater.

1: Judean and Galatian auxiliary forces fought together under Pompey against Caesar at Pharsalus in 48 BCE.

2: Judean and Galatian auxiliary forces were also at Philippi in 42 BCE, although Deiotarus of Galatia went over to the side of the triumvirs at the last minute.

3: Judean and Galatian auxiliary forces fought together under Anthony in his Parthian invasion of 37 BCE.

4: Judean and Galatian auxiliary forces were also at Actium though with the Galatians again switching sides at the last minute from Anthony to Octavian.

Is Paul's portrayal of the Galatians as fickle perhaps a reflection of their habit of switching sides when it seems to benefit them, like at Philippi and Actium?

Does this also help explain why there is no geographic location attached to the Galation letter, because he is addressing auxiliary troops in Greece instead of peoples in Asia Minor? The lack of a city name for the letter has always seemed odd to me.

Anyway, something to think about. :)

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Jax » Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:41 am

As far as I know, there were no Roman military veteran colonies established in the province of Galatia resulting from the civil wars. If anyone knows differently could you please inform me?

Thanks

Lane

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul as Combatant in 1st Century BCE

Post by Jax » Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:49 am

Cassius Dio book 44
45 1 "But all this I will omit, since not even Caesar himself ever took any pride in it, always hating, as he did, the deeds enforced by necessity. But when Heaven had most justly decided the issue of the battle, whom of those then captured for the first time did he put to death? Whom, rather, did he p389 not honour, not alone of the senators or knights or of the citizens in general, but even of the allies and subjects? 2 For no one, even of them, either died a violent death, or was censured, — no civilian, no king, no tribe, no city. On the contrary, some arrayed themselves on his side, and others obtained at least pardon with honour, so that all then lamented the fate of those who had perished. 3 Such exceeding humanity did he show, that he praised those who had coöperated with Pompey and allowed them to keep everything that Pompey had given them, but hated Pharnaces and Orodes, because, though friends of the vanquished, they had not assisted him. 4 It was chiefly for this reason that he not long afterward waged war on Pharnaces and was preparing to conduct a campaign against Orodes. And he certainly would have spared even Pompey himself if he had captured him alive. A proof of this is that he did not pursue him at once, but allowed him to flee at his leisure. 5 Also he was grieved when he heard of Pompey's death and did not praise his murderers, but put them to death for it soon after, and moreover even destroyed Ptolemy himself, because, though a child, he had allowed his benefactor to perish.

Post Reply