Not meaning to derail, Chrissy, but for ebion, not too many here are assuming that the Author of Acts is giving a de-facto description. A whole cohort of cavalry when a detachment would do? I'm more inclined to see a detachment at work here, perhaps 10 or at most 20 horsemen, than the whole cohort. IIRC, didn't someone once argue (Crosstalk2 probably) that "tagma" was a whole Roman Legion stationed in Antonia? I kind of doubt that, but there were Auxiliary forces there, enough to quell a riot at least. A Cohort of infantry to quash riots, and a similar Cohort of Cavalry for the routine exchanges of mail, supplies and revenue between Caesarea and Jerusalem?ebion wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 5:20 amI doubt Paul was a freedman if he could get protective custody from the Roman army who escort him to Caesarea with 470 men on almost no notice, when a Jamesian lynch mob wants to terminate his teachings, with predjudice.
Paul-in-Acts was a Herodian, and maybe an Iduamean; I see nothing in Philemon that ties it to him. I think the Faulines are a literary creation, not the Paul in Acts.
I think the Legate/Procurator may have been thought to have anticipated a major incident could brew up over this Paul fellow, and since he claims the privilege of Roman citizenship, he should be properly protected on his way out of town. If he was a retainer of a Herodian prince's household, and even after Antipas was deposed around 39 there were other Herodian princes who governed or ruled territories to the north along the border of Parthian controlled Mesopotamia.
These princes would each have a widespread series of gifted income properties and private businesses under their control. Paul then would be a retainer active in one such business, and it is not unreasonable that the prince's household could have pull among Roman military officers in Judea. IIRC, didn't Antipas of Galilee the prince who had a palace in Jerusalem and for a while controlled the appointment of HPs? How could his extended household NOT have pull with the Romans? Antipas' exile and loss of income properties in 39 would not affect his retainers, including freedmen and their descendants, who would go on as before, only now answerable to a new household. Chances are they would also be households of other Herodian princes. There were a LOT of them about.
I have to wonder about Paul's claim that he "bears the marks of my Lord." If Antipas was deposed on suspicion of harboring rebellious intents, some of his retainers may have been seized and interrogated under torture, including those who posses inferior grades of Roman "citizenship" such as Freedmen and their descendants. I would have to look up where I saw this in Roman law. A slave who is interrogated in such a way would have been interrogated under a certain amount of torture, enough to leave marks, even if their complicity was not seriously affected. Paul was probably absolved of any participation in a suspected rebellion plan, but I think Paul believed that his bodily marks from his interrogation had demonstrated his devotion to his Lord (Antipas) even after Antipas' dismissal.
Antipas was shipped off to exile in Gaul, and may have ended up in Spain, where Paul one day hoped to catch up with him. Antipas had done a good job as a Tetrarch, for over 30 years, and was done in by the jealousy of his wife for Agrippa's recent appointment as a King, which just led to exposure of Antipas' stockpile of weapons that was just too big for Roman comfort.
However, Antipas thought Agrippa was a bad apple (fired from job as market manager for taking a bribe from Damascus, and don't forget his crazy escape from a Roman procurator who had arrested him for owing the emperor a large sum, telling the shipowner to cut the mooring ropes in a harbor and escape under cover of night, which rivals Paul's escape from Damascus where he was lowered over the city wall in a basket), and undeserving of the honor of King without earning that right like Antipas had.
Agrippa, for his part, may have seen Antipas had built a reserve of weaponry that was in reserve for potential action, and feared that under the right conditions, Antipas might try to take Agrippa's kingdom by force should Parthians again support rebellion from Rome. Gaius may also have been thinking of all the trouble Antipas' skirmish with Aretas II of Nabatea had caused, just 4 years before. The Nabateans should have addressed the diss with the dons, and got permission to spank Antipas rather than set out with a military force in knee jerk reaction. Such inter-client warring was frowned upon, especially if they should need to be called upon for united action against Parthians one day.