I thought so. Just wanted to clarify.maryhelena wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:33 amSorry about that - without checking - I would think all lst century in this post is lst century B.C.Jax wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:30 amQuick question. Do you mean 1st century CE or 1st century BCE?maryhelena wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:17 amThanks for that info.Jax wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:44 am
Thanks Mary, it was my passion for a while, my blood ran hot with the pursuit. Thank you also for your thoughtful reply.
As far as Jewish combatants fighting for foreign powers, both as auxiliaries and mercenaries, this is well attested to in the histories of the period. If I'm not mistaken, Jewish mercenaries were highly thought of, by the Greeks of the Hellenistic period at any rate. We absolutely do know from the histories of the civil wars of Rome that Jewish auxiliaries were in fact being used in those conflicts and generals like Pompey and Cassius would have been bulking up their armies with whatever mercenaries that they could find. The 'Liberators' by force of necessity did most of their recruiting in the East.
OK - other options besides the hired gun mercenaryIt should also be pointed out that Paul need not be a merc. or combatant to have been in those conflicts as armies in those times used huge numbers of camp followers to do everything from cook food to make and repair tents. Perhaps this is where Paul gets his reputation as a tent maker. No way to know. I just am going off of Paul's usage of military terms and mention of a coworker as a fellow soldier. Tenuous, I agree, but what the hell.
The historical events of 63 b.c. and 37 b.c. are a problem for a historical Paul being part of a Roman military force in the first century. One could assume he had no interest in what the Roman's were doing in his homeland - but I would find that difficult to understand. One only has to think of the British occupation of Ireland and how money was sent to the Irish 'rebels' from the Irish in the US. Josephus, after the Jewish/Roman war of 70 c.e. went over to the Romans - and paid the price for doing so as regards his credibility with the Jews. So, methinks a historical Paul being neutral to what the Romans were up to with the Hasmoneans would be strange indeed.
As far as what Paul might have been doing or where he was during Pompey's march on Jerusalem, I haven't a clue. There certainly doesn't seem to be anything in the letters referring to this event.
Indeed, I think we can expect lots of editing as the NT story developed. As to why anyone would create an ahistorical Paul - because history was not just about a Roman crucifixion of a King of the Jews - it was also about a philosophical take on that crucifixion. The gospel story needed the epistles - as the epistles needed the gospel story. The NT Paul story does not make sense without a christ crucified. The gospel JC story is a dead end without a Pauline conversion/resurrection. Either both NT figures are historical figures or both NT figures are literary figures. Since neither of these two NT figures can be historically verified - the ahistorical position offers opportunities for researching early Jewish origins of Christianity.
Which, btw brings up a serious problem. If the letters are compilations of smaller letters, as they seem to be, then it is reasonable to suppose that editing was going on. To what extent we can never know with what we have available now. And, a ahistorical Paul cannot be ruled out although, why someone would want to create the personality that we encounter in some of the letters is a mystery to me. Possible of course, just not what I personally would expect.
Methinks I took your military involved historical figure of a lst century Paul in a direction you would prefer not to go.....Sending a lst century historical Paul off with the Romans - that's playing safe. Hasmonean history is too close to home to be comfortable.....
I took a theory, proposed by someone else, and tried to first, flesh it out, and then to try to tear it down, as I invited you to do, in an effort to see if it could pass as a possible alternate history of a Paul in the mid 1st century.
That's the way forward.....
So far it has stood up to critical scrutiny making clear that there is no possibility of finding a historical Paul in any time. Does this mean that Paul is a ahistorical literary construct? Perhaps. I however feel, just feel mind you, not prove, that the Paul that we have now is a combination of very early historical and much later ahistorical construct. A Paul that has so many other fingers in the pie as to be useless as a historical character. I continue to study the problem but for the most part have given up hope of ever finding closure.
Lane
(my formatting)
OK - edited earlier post to add B.C.
As far as 63 BCE goes I believe that Paul would have been in Cilicia, doing what I have no idea, a secret part of me wants him to be a pirate there.
As far as 37 BCE, the Parthians had invaded Syria and probably made it difficult to return to the Levant until they were repulsed. Also, Paul never says that he is from Jerusalem but rather seems to hail from Damascus. It is only Acts that makes that claim.
Bottom line. I don't know.