A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That's it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Paul was not a Roman Citizen.
- Thread starter fallingblood
- Start date
That's it.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
*sigh*
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
(Galatians 2:15-16 ESV)
It doesn't get much clearer than that. Apart from all the times that Paul declares himself a Hebrew and Israelite.:thud:
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Paul does identify himself as a Jew. But we have to remember that Paul identifies himself proudly that he is from the Tribe of Bejamin. So naturally he would identify himself as an Israelite.
Pragmatist
Member
You got me. Thanks for helping me identify this critical failure of my argument. I am influenced by the writings of Robert Eisenman. I got the whole "Paul never self-identifies specifically as a Jew" thing from Eisenman. If that is wrong, it makes his other assertions questionable, I suppose.
Hell. I have invested some intellectual effort into Eisenman. I even read Josephus (thank you, internet). What am I going to do now?
I still think you guys are downplaying Paul's anti-semitism. "The children of the slave woman"? "A veil covers their hearts"? One of the reasons that I latched onto Eisenman is because he helps explain the blatant anti-semitism of the NT.
Please, help me explain away this kind of racist nonsense (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16):
"For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of Gods churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last."
This is racist slander, sir. The Romans killed Jesus. I'm tired of people, for two thousand years, trying to blame this on the Jews. Stop it, already! It's sick.
And it is exactly the kind of teaching I would expect to emanate from a Roman citizen (or, at the very least, an agent of the emperor).
outhouse
Atheistically
because he was a citizen doesnt mean he was a agent of the emporer.
while how jewish he was is a great question, if anything, I see the Saducees hiring him to persecute the would be christian sect, as they ran the bank.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
So you think the entire story of the Sanhedrin bringing charges against Jesus is a fabrication. Who fabricated this story in your opinion?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You're welcome. First thing that I would do is re-read Eisenman: determine his bias (did he want to separate Paul from the Jews for any other reason) and if you read him correctly.
And I can't tell you how many times I've realized that what I read was wrong (even sourced from competent scholars).
In this case there are a few possibilities for Eisenman: he hasn't read Galatians (unlikely), he doesn't think that it's Pauline (it is), or he interprets this passage in a VERY odd way because of his bias (likely), or you misread it (also likely).
Now you should just keep reading and thinking. That's all you can do.
OK, Paul uses this type of polemic on Gentiles (specifically those who follow Greek wisdom of the sophists) in 1 Corinthians 2:
When Paul was upset with a group (in 1 Thessalonians he says that Jews were persecuting the Christians) -- either Jew or Gentile -- he associates them with the people who crucified Jesus.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
The problem with this thinking is that every Roman citizen / "agent" that we know of who wrote about Christianity until the fourth century wrote AGAINST all things both JEWISH and CHRISTIAN.
(from my dissertation, page 63)
In other words, any "agent" of Rome (whatever the heck that means) could have written these things against the Jews. However, these same persons could not have tolerated anything else in the epistle.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
So riddle me this:
If Paul's writings support the Empire so much that we could consider him a Herodian or an agent of the Empire ....
Why the heck are the followers of Paul - those who preserved and revered his teachings) - why are they being killed by actual agents of Rome as early as Pliny the Younger??
It strikes me as being inordinately difficult to read Paul's vitriolic rant and not see it through the distorting lens of centuries of antisemitism and pogrom. I have no reason to believe that Paul would have endorsed the use to which the "Christ-killer" charge would be put decades hence or felt any kinship at all with the anti-Semites who would maliciously promulgate that charge.
I'd be curious to hear how we are to understand Paul's "the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets". If the plural is real and intended, one wonders if we are dealing with error, exaggeration, or interpolation.
I'd be curious to hear how we are to understand Paul's "the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets". If the plural is real and intended, one wonders if we are dealing with error, exaggeration, or interpolation.
outhouse
Atheistically
Pragmatist
Member
I'm not going to re-read that two thousand page sleeping pill for at least a year or two. His bias is quite easy to determine, however, since he is very open about it. I believe I represent him correctly.
The listing for Galatians in the index shows it referenced quite frequently.
It definitely is. It contains notices about "James, the Lord’s brother" which are indispensable to Eisenman's argument.
I'll have to check that. I don't know that he directly quotes or even mentions this particular passage (that would be troubling). The index has about a hundred citations for Galatians, but it doesn't tell you which particular passage is used. The notes, which he claims to be exhaustive, are on his website or something. It'll take time.
Well, I can nitpick over the apparent use of a plural pronoun (we) instead of a singular one (I). He never says "I am a Jew." That seems forced, though.
Eisenman addresses it in some way, I am sure. Even the people who think he is crazy have to admit he is meticulous. I'll look into it.
That sounds pretty good. But certainly he uses this polemic more frequently with reference to the Jews, does he not?
Wait a second. What about Jospephus? He's first century, was adopted by the Flavians, served the Roman occupiers of Palestine according to his own testimony, made propaganda on their behalf (The Jewish Wars), and he writes approvingly of Jesus in the Antiquities. A lot of scholars think that's an interpolation, though.
Don't act like you don't know what an "agent" of Rome is. Josephus is a perfect example. They were so pleased with his services, he was adopted into the royal family.
Now, hold on a second. We've got a problem. It's been quite a few years since I've read my Gibbon, but he paints quite a different picture than you do of the "persecution" suffered by Christians in these times. The vast majority of Christians were persecuted by other Christians. There were occasional abuses by intolerant emperors, but nothing compared to the bloodshed of internecine strife. Persecution by Rome is largely a myth. He says this explicitly.
And after all, why would Rome persecute a religion that teaches you to obey the rulers and pay your taxes? Do you reject The Decline And Fall? It is considered authoritative.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
1) I agree that the persecutions of Christians in the past was myth, but Christian on Christian violence didn't start until Constantine's laws were enforced.
Christians were persecuted for being a foreign religion which they understood to be a threat to society. A big part of this was Pauline theology. So what I'm saying is you're missing the point due to unclear and misinformed thinking.
Consider:
a) myths concerning Christian persecution - by both secular and religious thinkers - does not negate writings like Pliny the Younger that explicitly describe the persecution of early Christians
b) Josephus did not endorse Christianity, and his knowledge of Christian/Pauline myth is nonexistent, even if he does remember a single tradition concerning James
c) all Roman agents who wrote about Christian/Pauline theology denounced it. This isn't just persecution (like Pliny who killed them, who has no knowledge of Paul), but Roman thinkers who attacked the ideas of Paul as non-Roman and an affront to Greco-Roman philosophy.
There is absolutely no way that we can argue that Paul was in any way affiliated with mainstream thought that was associated with Roman leadership of his day. However, if we excise tiny sentences or words from Paul, we do see the influence of Roman thought, but he was not an Roman agent in any way personally affiliated with the Empire, and certainly not a Herodian or a Roman citizen.
I can compare your thinking to this:
Pee-wee Herman said one word in Russian which happens to be a technical term for Soviet ideology, so be must be Russian citizen.
2) Decline and Fall (PUBLISHED IN 1776-89) is NOT authoritative, and I hate to even imagine why you think that it would be authoritative. I think that it's fun to read, but surely if you thought about it for a minute, you would agree that there has been a little bit of research and refinement of historical methods since 1776.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I don't presume to know how you are using the term.
By whom? I'd consider it outdated. As far as I can tell, so do classicists and other historians.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
As far as it being outdated, that's a no-brainer.
The first volume was published 236 years ago. It was actually published on Feb. 17, 1776, a few months before the United States declared independence from Britain.
Have any significant changes in historical methodology changed since then? Any archaeological finds? Perhaps scientific or social changes? Maybe world wars?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
The Pragmatist and his imaginary friends.
Not really. I mean, we don't have any new texts, papyri, historiographical approaches, or...wait...would entirely new fields working with a vastly greater wealth of data constitute "changes in historical methodology"? Nah.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Historiography occurring as we speak!
Pragmatist
Member
No doubt. The process of education is time consuming, and never reaches a terminal point.
For example, this list that you helpfully provided:
That looks like a year's worth of reading in and of itself! Thanks to the net, it is probably all instantly available, although I would lack the footnotes and commentary that come with a Penguin or Oxford, let alone a more scholarly edition. But, I am thankful for what I have.
So all these guys criticize Christianity? Are they as vitriolic in their attacks as Paul, when he attacks the Jews? I hope so (I like a good rant).
Now, the two points you have drawn my attention to:
I was a little confused how you can agree that persecution was a myth, and at the same time say Christians were persecuted because they were "a threat to society." But, you clarify yourself:
Ah, your list of Roman thinkers. This could not help but give me a more complete picture of the Roman/pagan attitude towards Christians, once I get around to examining it in greater detail.
So, I think what you mean to say is that exaggeration of persecution by Roman authorities is a myth. There was persecution, as described by writers like Pliny, but it was no where near as extensive and aggressive as is sometimes supposed, an illusion you point out is shared by "both secular and religious thinkers."
If that is what you are saying, I agree (and I think Gibbon would agree). I would only add, surely religious thinkers are more to blame for promulgating this myth, versus secular thinkers, don't you think? It obviously suits the purposes of Christianity to spread a myth of heroic suffering at the hands of Roman authority. The secular thinkers who bought into this myth were merely ensnared in a web already spun by religion (too bad they didn't consult their Gibbon).
I would like to address you other corollary points b) and c), as well as your clever witticisms about Pee Wee Herman, but I fear I have already become much too long-winded, as is my inclination.
No, I do not agree. Tell me, specifically, what "bit of research" has popped up in the last few hundred years that invalidates, or even calls into question, one of Gibbons' factual conclusions?
And what, specifically, are these "refinement of historical methods since 1776"? Right now, I am reading Sabbatai Sevi by Gershom Scholem. High level historical scholarship, I'm sure you would agree? Nearly two hundred years after the fact, and the method has not changed. There's nothing mystical about it. You read everything available, you evaluate the accuracy of your sources, and you interpret them. The only hard part is learning the languages and gathering the material.
New texts have become available since? Absolutely. This material invalidates the conclusions of Gibbon? Prove it.
I don't think Scholem had very extensive access to the Qumran material. Does that invalidate his research? Perhaps, but I can't abide a blanket dismissal of one of his books just because it came out in 1950, and neither can I abide a blanket dismissal of The Decline And Fall just because it came out in 1776. As if mankind has developed special powers of reason in the last year or two which invalidate all earlier thought!
Look at that list of pagan thinkers you thoughtfully provided, who criticized the NT and Christianity. Has this list changed in the last 3 centuries? Do you suppose that your understanding of these sources is deeper than his? If you have extra sources, good for you. What are these souces, and more importantly, how do they invalidate his thought?
Now, I have wandered far astray from the original topic. Let's return.
To the untrained eye, especially when this eye is influenced by a crank like Robert Eisenman, St. Paul comes across like a master propagandist: commissioned by Rome to help quell the messianic fervor among their Jewish populations, his ideological efforts eventually lead to a supremely subservient religion which the rulers, once they overcame their pagan prejudices, could readily adopt.
I am sure this portrait I have painted in my mind's eye is in need of correction. But how can I trust the correction of one who so readily and disdainfully dismisses Gibbon? I know how; because he wrote in 1776. So easily dispensed with.