Rather than muck up another thread, I thought I would give brief exposition of "Paul". Some of this I've repeated before, some not.outhouse wrote:The problem here is, no one wants to admit to and follow any kind of historical foundation and build from there.
1. Who was "Paul"? Paul - aka "Tiny" - is a character based on a real person, if Dio, Suetonius, Tacitus and others are to be believed. That person is "Mucianus", Governor of Syria and a Bitchy kind of competitor to Vespasian, who had been given Judea to destroy by Nero.
2, If Paul is based on Mucianus, what makes Mucianus so special? Please see http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/2226.html . So much on that page makes its way into the NT it becomes amazing to behold. He held Imperial Power in his hands and gave it all to Vespasian. As a small "pointer" as to where this all goes, Mucianus, from Dio, gets all the philophers kicked out of Rome and then sorta', kinda' disappears. He is recorded as Suffect/Consul for a few years in Vespasians reign and then disappears from History, sorta' like Paul lives by himself preaching the New Religion and then *POOF!*, begone. This means that, as Moses couldn't have written about his own death, someone else supplying the penmanship on the end of Mucianus. 75 CE plus a few years. We will come back to this is a moment. The Timeline is greatly shifted forward, at least 30 years.
3. He may have been a Eunuch.
Suetonius,12 Casesars, "Vespasian":
"He [[Vespasian]] bore the frank language of his friends, the quips of pleaders, and the impudence of the philosophers with the greatest patience. Though Licinius Mucianus, a man of notorious unchastity, presumed upon his services to treat Vespasian with scant respect, he never had the heart to criticize him except privately and then only to the extent of adding to a complaint made to a common friend, the significant words: "I at least am a man."
There is more here than meets the eye, considering the preferences of Galba, Otho and Vitellius and from the Court of Claudius to laws concerning Claims of Rape to the wit of Juvenal but...
"Saaay, if Mucianus was a eunuch, was Paul? Hmmm..."
4. So, how do we get on this Mucianus Bandwagon? One place to start would be the "Vision on the Road to Damascus". Plainly stated, Mucianus was urged by Titus to end the feud with Vespasian and from then on, Mucianus dogs Vespasian to march on Rome. Vespasian heads west to Alexandria, Mucianus heads to the north, taxing and commandeering everythin not nailed down. Then, something happens in the Pontus, mentioned a few days ago. You know, Pontus, where Marcion was supposed to have lived his early life. See Tacitus, Histories, Book 3 for the Story of the loss of the Greek City Trapezus at the hands of Anicetus. Cross reference that with the "Queen's Eunuch" Story to see if any of this makes sense.
5. With me so far? ("No...") That's OK. Antonius Primus beats the piss out of Vitellius at Cremona and precedes Mucianus into Rome BUT has to give up power to Mucianus. Mucianus also has to baby-sit Domitian, dba "The Holy Spirit".
6. Now, about those Paulines:
1 Corinthians 1: 14 - 16 (RSV):
[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:
"The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus caused the utmost consternation. He was a son of Caius Piso, and had done nothing, but a noble name and his own youthful beauty made him the theme of common talk; and while the country was still unquiet and delighted in novel topics, there were persons who associated him with idle rumours of Imperial honours. By order of Mucianus he was surrounded with a guard of soldiers. Lest his execution in the capital should excite too much notice, they conducted him to the fortieth milestone from Rome on the Appian Road, and there put him to death by opening his veins.
I've dissected this section a number of times but let me add this: We find awkward passages where the previous Orthodoxy was just all OK with the passage as written 'til someone later came and pointed out how Lame-O this all sounds;
John: 20 - 21 (RSV):
[20] The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"
[21] But he spoke of the temple of his body.
"Forty-six years..." is a Time Marker and if you know which year to subtract from, you a date very important to maryhelena on this site. So some Einsteen comes along and adds "...But he spoke of the temple of his body..."
"WTF?!?? Jesus was 46 years old when he was murdered?" Uhhh...No...
So it is here. Look at 1 Corinthians 1: 17 (RSV):
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
HUH!?!!!
The Original had "Paul" almost appearing to give testimony that he only killed...that is, baptised Priscus and Gaius and the "family of Stephanas". Or was it Crispus and Caius, I forget. I DO know who the Family of Stephanas was. You can to if you look at Acts 6 and identify the one "Nikolas of Antioch" It would certainly take an Augustine Intellect to figure that one out.
We haven't even gotten to the Main Idea.
Maybe more later, I dunno.
CW
