GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2023 1:57 am
As far as I know, all the heretics placed Paul very early, even those that rejected Paul (like the Ebionites). So if Paul was a literary creation, they placed him early. If the person himself was a literary creation, I think that person as a letter writer with a collection wouldn't be an unlikely component of that creation.
I'm not so sure of this and I want to know.
The Ebionaens were early (>=63 AD), but may have rejected the Paul in Acts without even a trace of the Fauliines. Even in Acts there were lynch mobs out for him:
And he said, The Jews have agreed to desire thee that thou wouldest bring down Paul to morrow into the council, as though they would enquire somewhat of him more perfectly.
But do not thou yield unto them: for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, which have bound themselves with an oath, that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him: and now are they ready, looking for a promise from thee. (Acts 23:20-21 [KJV])
And serious ones at that: when the Roman army takes him into protective custody they escort him to Caesarea with 470
men on almost no notice:
And he called unto him two centurions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Cæsarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night; (Acts 23:23 [KJV])
480 Roman soldiers is a magic number: it's a Roman cohort, or 6 Roman centuries (72-80 men); there would also have been ~100 support slaves and workers that accompanied them, plus the food water and logistics for a 100 mile march with 70 horses to Caesaria. That's a lot of protection for one person: it would only happen for someone the Romans felt was both important and threatened. It would only happen if Paul was a close relative of Herod, and the Romans were committed to proping up Herod's throne.
Faul says he's a relative of Herod (Rom. 16:11). And the author of Acts tells us that Manaen "had been brought up with Herod the tetrach* and Saul[Paul]" (Acts. 13:1 [KJV] *=comma removed) So that places him very close to Herod: a nephew or perhaps a son by an ex-wife. And he has Roman citizenship (Acts 22:25), a rare priviledge reserved for the Herodians who ruled (with the support Roman force of arms).
There's an unresolved ambiguity in both Acts and the Paulines as to whether or not Paul was a Hebrew. Paul claims he is a Pharisee (Acts 23:6) and studied with Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) which we presume was reserved for Hebrews, but he may be lying. Faul basicaly admits to lying about being a "Jew" whenever it suits him:
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; (I Corinthians 9:20 [KJV])
We take seriously the Ebionite charge in the Clementines, and repeated in the Panarion (1.30.16:9)
that Paul was never a real Hebrew to begin with. Quoting from Robert M. Price's review of Eiseman's book
"James the Brother of Jesus":
Maccoby shows quite extensively in his Paul and Hellenism that the Pauline Epistles give precious little evidence of having been written by a Jew, what with their anti-Semitic outbursts, their Mystery Religion affinities, their Gnosticizing exegesis, and their utterly non-Jewish view of the Torah as a burden. Eisenman enhances his case by adducing the evidence for Paul's Herodian background, something we really do not have to read too far between the lines to see, given his Roman citizenship, his kinship to one Herodion and to the household of Aristobulus. If this is what the Ebionites meant, that Paul was as little a Jew as Herod the Great despite his pretense,
We agree; do we have any idea, even speculation, of who was the mother of Paul
Dr. Trevor Marshall has written 7 Reasons Paul was Herodian
, that adds to the points we made above
(his 2,4,5,7) with:
- 3. Saul/Paul officially persecuted Christians on behalf of the Temple authorities. This is odd. Think about how hard it was for the Sanhedrin to kill Jesus Christ. Back and forth between the Roman Pontius Pilate and the Roman appointed “King” Herod Antipas the Tetrarch. Killing Christ was complicated and difficult. ...
Who was the only man on earth who could arrange for Saul to act on behalf of the High Priest in the foreign city of Damascus? Oh that’s right, Herod Antipas the Tetrarch!
Why was Saul/Paul able to fulfill his desire to persecute Christians on behalf on the High Priest throughout the Roman Empire? Because his family was close to the family of Herod.
- 6. Josephus refers to a “Saulus” who persecuted people in Jerusalem. From the Antiquities (20.9.4) of Josephus: ...
Is this the same “Saul”? It’s hard to tell, but a Saul who was “of the royal family” and “kindred to (Herod) Agrippa” and who “used violence with the people” sure sounds like Saul/Paul in his pre-Christian days.
But there's another possible more nuanced answer: the Herodians were Idumeans who regarded theselves as "converted" but were not accepted as such by the Sadducees, Samaratains, Essenes or other Hebrews. With the possible exception of the Pharisees who may have accepted them for political reasons, at least on the surface; the Pharisees and Herodians worked together. (And maybe the Sadducees when the Herodians appointed the HP.) Herod Antipater, also called Herod Antipas, was a descendant of Esau, the father of the Edomites according to Josephus
. This is important because the Idumeans were generally hated and/or rejected by the Hebrews
: "Herod’s Jewish identity was always a sore point; he was simply not Jewish enough for most of his reluctant subjects." This might explain the lynch mob going after Paul, if he was also seen as an Idumean
or an Edomite
. Recall that it was Herod with the Pharisees that plotted to kill Jesus (Luke 13:31).
So the Ebionaens
had lots to judge the Paul-in-Acts on long before the Faulines by MarcionOrLater
appear. It's the Faulines
that are the literary creation, not the Paul in Acts