Paul as a Herodian?

[DCHindley]

Philemon may be a Freedman or a freedman's son, perhaps like Paul himself, hence a "brother."

I 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.

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?

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.

DCH

[ebion]

I 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.

Not too many here are assuming that the Author of Acts is giving a de-facto description. A whole cohort ...

I can only conclude that the author of Acts gives us a lengthy desciption of the full cohort of the Roman Army assembled on short notice to protect the Paul in Acts in order to point out the importance of the action.

He does so to lead us deduce the reason: Paul was a close and protected relative of Herod.

But back to the OP: I see nothing in Philemon that ties it to Paul or Faul, although it's in Marcion's canon.

[DCHindley]

I 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.

Not too many here are assuming that the Author of Acts is giving a de-facto description. A whole cohort ...

I can only conclude that the author of Acts gives us a lengthy desciption of the full cohort of the Roman Army assembled on short notice to protect the Paul in Acts in order to point out the importance of the action.

He does so to lead us deduce the reason: Paul was a close and protected relative of Herod.

But back to the OP: I see nothing in Philemon that ties it to Paul or Faul, although it's in Marcion's canon.

The person who made this claim that an entire Roman Legion" was stationed at the temple was Jack Kilmon. I'm not sure he is still alive, but Jack learned Hebrew and Aramaic from Wm Albright (I may have person wrong), his Greek was self taught, and he made a living milking snake venom for use by labs that make anti-venoms. Interesting guy. Jack K had this peculiar interpretation for what this "tagma" was supposed to have consisted of. It wasn't well received, as most thought that a caretaker government would not have a regular army Roman Legion stationed in their territory. If I find the subject posted here on BC&H or on IIDB/FRDB, I'll start a new thread or continue with an existing thread about Paul as a Herodian.

Jack, or someone, is maintaining a web page for Jack: The Scriptorium
https://www.historian.net/target.html

DCH

[ebion]

I 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.

Not too many here are assuming that the Author of Acts is giving a de-facto description. A whole cohort ...

I can only conclude that the author of Acts gives us a lengthy desciption of the full cohort of the Roman Army assembled on short notice to protect the Paul in Acts in order to point out the importance of the action.

He does so to lead us deduce the reason: Paul was a close and protected relative of Herod.

But back to the OP: I see nothing in Philemon that ties it to Paul or Faul, although it's in Marcion's canon.

...snake venom...

Via the link I provided: I'm citing Acts:

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])

But back to the OP: I see nothing in Philemon that ties it to Paul or Faul, although it's in Marcion's canon.

[Peter Kirby]

I have split these posts into a new thread as an interesting tangent.

from: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9263

[DCHindley]

I have split these posts into a new thread as an interesting tangent.

from: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9263

Thanks Peter

DCH

[ebion]

I have split these posts into a new thread as an interesting tangent.

I think it's very interesting, and with time, I'm alloting more importance to this.

I credit the original idea of Paul being closely related to Herod, to Eisenman; perhaps someone with a copy of his book on James could do a short summary of his findings.

But also del Tondo and Mauck made me read Acts much more subtlety; they argue that the author of Acts had a subtle role: if Acts is a legal brief to a Roman prosecutor, he had to argue for Paul in a way that would be liked and accepted by a Roman pagan prosceutor. The results for Christianity of a guilty verdict could be catastropic: Christianity could be made an illicit religion - with a possible death sentence associated with membership.

So there are little perks added in for a pagan audience, like the reference to Castor and Pollux (Acts 28:11 KJV). As well as serious digs against Paul thrown in for Christians that a Roman would take as a compliment but Christians as a dig, like the report that Paul visited the Pythia and she approved of him! del Tondo covers this in his videos.

• 20230211@Why Does Mounce Omit the Python Priestess in the Greek for Acts 16 16 who endorsed Paul@tYsh7y0yaEo
• 20230311@Why does Luke add for days Paul accepted demonic Python seer s support@eUxTP0Aqo64

[ebion]

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.

This is a huge number considering that at the time, Rome did not even have a full legion in Palestine:

While the Roman administrator at Jerusalem was apparently in some fashion subject to the much-higher-ranking governor of Syria, within Judea he nevertheless exercised full civil and criminal jurisdictional powers. The permanent residence of the Roman prefect seems to have been at Caesarea on the coast, rather than at Jerusalem. His authority throughout the province was enforced by Roman troops—not a full legion, but several cohorts of Roman regulars, as well as non-Roman auxiliary troops in Rome’s service. In Jerusalem a Roman cohort of six hundred men occupied the Fortress of Antonia, built by Herod adjacent to his temple and named in honor of Marc Antony. Herod’s palace and citadel complex in the upper city was also held by a Roman garrison. The prefect’s authority, prestige, and power base was sufficient for what Rome considered a small and insignificant province like Judea, at least until the time of the Jewish rebellion.

[ebion]

"And he has Roman citizenship (Acts 22:25), a rare priviledge reserved for the Herodians who ruled (with the support Roman force of arms)."

And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?
When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.
Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. (Acts 22:25-27 [KJV])

From https://www.britannica.com/biography/He ... -of-Judaea

Herod (born 73 bce—died March/April, 4 bce, Jericho, Judaea) Roman-appointed king of Judaea (37–4 bce), who built many fortresses, aqueducts, theatres, and other public buildings and generally raised the prosperity of his land but who was the centre of political and family intrigues in his later years. The New Testament portrays him as a tyrant, into whose kingdom Jesus of Nazareth was born.

Herod was born in southern Palestine. His father, Antipater, was an Edomite (a Semitic people, identified by some scholars as Arab, who converted to Judaism in the 2nd century bce). Antipater was a man of great influence and wealth who increased both by marrying the daughter of a noble from Petra (in southwestern Jordan), at that time the capital of the rising Arab Nabataean kingdom. Thus, Herod was of Arab origin, although he was a practicing Jew.

When Pompey (106–48 bce) invaded Palestine in 63 bce, Antipater supported his campaign and began a long association with Rome, from which both he and Herod were to benefit. Six years later Herod met Mark Antony, whose lifelong friend he was to remain. Julius Caesar also favoured the family; he appointed Antipater procurator of Judaea in 47 bce and conferred on him Roman citizenship, an honour that descended to Herod and his children.

Wow! Herod's Roman citizenship came from Julius Caesar, and it was extended only to his family, so Paul is a member of Herod's immediate family

Which made us ask: do we have any idea, even speculation, of who was the mother of Paul?

Now we ask: is Paul a son of Herod by his first wife Phasaelis?

[lclapshaw]

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.

What was Paul's sisters name I wonder. If Paul was this important surely his sister was too. And her son's name?