Paul as a Herodian?

[DCHindley]

"Andy"

[DCHindley]

If I recall correctly, there were several grades of Roman citizenship, and several lesser grades of citizenship for slaves manumitted by Roman citizens.

The value of the citizenship rights granted by a Roman master manumitting a truly valued slave, will be of a greater value than the citizenship granted at a manumission of a mediocre slave who has served their mandatory 30 years (like was the custom in Roman Egypt).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_freedmen

Of course I am only suggesting that thinking of Paul as a client of a Herodian patron might help us understand a bit about his origins, history, and the psychological issues that shaped his personality.

My suggestion that his patron was connected to the house of Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee/Perea, is only my educated guess. After the exile of Antipas, Paul would have had to forge relationships with new patrons. Eisenman had suggested that he was a grain buyer for Helena, Queen mother of the King of Adiabene.

Converted by a Judean trader she befriended, who told her God would receive her if she revered Him (this sounds a bit like Paul's pitch for justification by faith in fulfillment of God's promise to Abram). Her son, the king, was OK with that, until ... the son met a new Judean advisor who urged him to become a real Judean and have himself circumcised. Helena apparently assented to her son's new wishes.

Anyhow, Helena was active in the region of Judea in the 40s & 50s CE as a supplicant (she had made a Nazirite Vow to observe ritual purity for 7 years, traveled to Judea to have her head shaved in the temple to fulfill the vow, only to learn that local lawyers had ruled that her foreign land was tainted by corpse impurity, and she had to fulfill her 7 years again in pure Jerusalem. She took it in stride, and was very liberal with her wealth for local charity, and gave a costly gold plaque to the temple that was remembered fondly by the later rabbis.

I don't know about that idea that he was a grain buyer for Helen mentioned several times by Josephus in his works. If one reads a bit into the short description of Helena's activity in Jerusalem above, one can see some passages in Corinthians where Paul is reacting to Helena's attempt to fulfill her Nazirite vow, and you never saw such anger.

Considering Helena had accepted her son's decision to accept circumcision, and did not rely on justification by faith that God would fulfill his promises, probably set him off big time. If he was her client at some point after 40 CE, he may have felt she betrayed the cause of faithful gentile God-fearers that Paul had championed in his letters.

Helena's dedicated gold plaque, incidentally, was inscribed with the passage in the Law where a woman can prove her innocence to a charge of adultery by means of the "bitter water" ordeal, suggesting that this was something she experienced herself. Paul may have also judged her for that, regardless if she happened to survive her own ordeal.

Politics!

DCH

[lclapshaw]

"Andy"

Shirley, you jest.

[andrewcriddle]

If I recall correctly, there were several grades of Roman citizenship, and several lesser grades of citizenship for slaves manumitted by Roman citizens.

The value of the citizenship rights granted by a Roman master manumitting a truly valued slave, will be of a greater value than the citizenship granted at a manumission of a mediocre slave who has served their mandatory 30 years (like was the custom in Roman Egypt).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_freedmen

Of course I am only suggesting that thinking of Paul as a client of a Herodian patron might help us understand a bit about his origins, history, and the psychological issues that shaped his personality.

My suggestion that his patron was connected to the house of Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee/Perea, is only my educated guess. After the exile of Antipas, Paul would have had to forge relationships with new patrons. Eisenman had suggested that he was a grain buyer for Helena, Queen mother of the King of Adiabene.

Converted by a Judean trader she befriended, who told her God would receive her if she revered Him (this sounds a bit like Paul's pitch for justification by faith in fulfillment of God's promise to Abram). Her son, the king, was OK with that, until ... the son met a new Judean advisor who urged him to become a real Judean and have himself circumcised. Helena apparently assented to her son's new wishes.

Anyhow, Helena was active in the region of Judea in the 40s & 50s CE as a supplicant (she had made a Nazirite Vow to observe ritual purity for 7 years, traveled to Judea to have her head shaved in the temple to fulfill the vow, only to learn that local lawyers had ruled that her foreign land was tainted by corpse impurity, and she had to fulfill her 7 years again in pure Jerusalem. She took it in stride, and was very liberal with her wealth for local charity, and gave a costly gold plaque to the temple that was remembered fondly by the later rabbis.

I don't know about that idea that he was a grain buyer for Helen mentioned several times by Josephus in his works. If one reads a bit into the short description of Helena's activity in Jerusalem above, one can see some passages in Corinthians where Paul is reacting to Helena's attempt to fulfill her Nazirite vow, and you never saw such anger.

Considering Helena had accepted her son's decision to accept circumcision, and did not rely on justification by faith that God would fulfill his promises, probably set him off big time. If he was her client at some point after 40 CE, he may have felt she betrayed the cause of faithful gentile God-fearers that Paul had championed in his letters.

Helena's dedicated gold plaque, incidentally, was inscribed with the passage in the Law where a woman can prove her innocence to a charge of adultery by means of the "bitter water" ordeal, suggesting that this was something she experienced herself. Paul may have also judged her for that, regardless if she happened to survive her own ordeal.

Politics!

DCH

Different grades of citizenship developed during the 2nd century CE and were officially recognized by Caracalla in 212.
IF we accept Acts 22:28

The commander answered, “I acquired this citizenship for a large sum of money.” And Paul said, “But I was actually born a citizen.”

Then Paul in the 1st century CE is claiming full citizenship with all that entailed. Later one would have to distinguish between Honestiores_and_humiliores but not in Paul's time.

Andrew Criddle

[GakuseiDon]

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.

I only have access via archive.org, but I've taken out snippets regarding Paul being a Herodian. These are scattered throughout his book:

Paul, on the other hand, will emerge as a highly compromised individual, deeply involved with Roman officials and Herodian kings - a proposition given added weight by the intriguing allusions to a parallel character in the Dead Sea Scrolls called 'the Lying Spouter' or 'Scoffer' - even to the extent of actually being a member of the family of King Herod. His contacts will go very high indeed, even into the Emperor Nero's personal household itself (Phil. 4:22).
...
The intermediary in this process of inviting the Roman army into the city was a member of the Herodian family called Saul. He is the one who delivered the message from 'the peace coalition' to the Roman army camped outside Jerusalem to enter, and a final report even to Nero's headquarters, then in Corinth in Greece, a favourite haunt too of the religious activities of 'Paul'.
...
The notice in Josephus about Saulus 'using violence with the People' has a bearing, not only on the attack by the Enemy Paul on James as described in the Pseudoclementines, but also the real events lying behind the 'Stephen' episode in Acts. Paul himself writes in his Letter to the Romans in a passage not generally disputed that the bearer should send his regards to someone, he calls, his 'kinsman Herodion' (i.e., 'the littlest Herod' - 16:11).
...
This is consistent as well with the picture of the 'Herodian' Paul in the Pseudoclementine Recognitions, leading the attack on James in the 40's. The only problem is the time frame - approximately twenty years' difference. The 'Saul' in Josephus reappears in 66 CE as the intermediary between 'the Peace Party’ in Jerusalem and Herod Agrippa II's army and that of the Romans outside it. Again, this Saul has either just escaped from Agrippa II's palace or the Citadel where the whole Guard has just been slaughtered in the initial moments of the Uprising - all, that is, but the Captain who was forcibly circumcised thereby saving himself.7
...
It is also clear from the Antiquities’ sequencing of the assassination of Ananus' brother, the High Priest Jonathan, by 'Robbers' or 'Sicarii' around 55 CE, leading to the Temple Wall Affair and the conspiracy by Ananus and Agrippa II to remove James in 62 CE, that James is seen as being at the centre of these disturbances, at least in the eyes of the Establishment High Priest and the Herodian King. If the relationship of Saulus - 'a kinsman of Agrippa' - with Paul can be confirmed, it is legitimate to ask just what Paul's repeated conversations during two years of protective custody in Caesarea with Agrippa II's brother-in-law, the Roman Governor Felix and with Festus and Agrippa II himself, were really about (Acts 24:24-26:32).

The most interesting point by Eisenman is that Paul writes in Romans to send regards to 'his kinsman Herodion'. The name shares the same root as the name 'Herod'. The next most interesting is speculating an association between 'Paul' and a 'Saul' mentioned by Josephus. There are other points I've left out but they are much more minor. His points seem highly speculative.

[ebion]

Different grades of citizenship developed during the 2nd century CE and were officially recognized by Caracalla in 212.
IF we accept Acts 22:28

The commander answered, “I acquired this citizenship for a large sum of money.” And Paul said, “But I was actually born a citizen.”

Then Paul in the 1st century CE is claiming full citizenship with all that entailed. Later one would have to distinguish between Honestiores_and_humiliores but not in Paul's time.

Andrew: what translation of Acts is that from?

I find its "I was actually born a citizen." is clearer than the KJV which obscures this essential point:

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.
And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. (Acts 22:25-28 [KJV])

Also the KJV obscures with "the chief captain"; the Peshiita is clearer that it was the head of the legion who was informed:

And while they stretched him with straps, he, Paul said unto the Captain of a hundred who was standing next to him, "Is it permitted for you that you should scourge a man, a Roman, who isn't condemned?" And when the Centurion/the Captain of a hundred heard this, he came near unto the Captain of a thousand, and said unto him, "What are you doing? For, this man is a Roman !" And the Captain of a thousand came near unto him, and said unto him, "Tell me, are you * a Roman?" And he said unto him, "Yes." And the Captain of a thousand {Kiliarka} answered, and said unto him, "I, with much silver, acquired Roman-citizenship." Paul said unto him, "But, I was even born with it!" (Acts 22:25-28 [HAS])

Etheridge's translation of the PeshittA uses "tribune":

And when the centurion heard, he approached the tribune, and said to him, What doest thou ? For this is a Roman man.

Tribune/Head of a legion is a very senior figure in Palestine: more like a Brigadier/General in English.

[ebion]

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

Turns out that is a very good question, especially if you include step-sisters in the definition! Remember my contention that the Author of Acts wields a subtle but double-edged pen: if Paul was this important surely his (step)sister was too!!

Faul says he's a relative of Herod (Rom. 16:11). And the Author of Acts tells us that Manaen "had been brought up with Herod the tetrach* and Saul[Paul]" (Acts. 13:1 [KJV] *=comma removed) So that places him very close to Herod: a nephew or perhaps a son by an ex-wife. And he has Roman citizenship (Acts 22:25), a rare priviledge reserved for the Herodians who ruled (with the support Roman force of arms).

If Herod's first wife Phasaelis was born around 3 BC and married Herod around the age of 12 (sic), then she would have been married to Herod for 17 years before he divorced her in 26 AD. "There is a high likelihood that the marriage was arranged by Augustus, as he wanted the vassals of the Roman Empire to keep the peace between their kingdoms through intermarriage" (Tomasino, Anthony J. The World of Jesus p. 65) A princess of a Nabatean King, married to the prince and tetrarch Herod, for 17 of her peak childbearing years...

From Paul Was The Son of Herod Antipas:

Acts 23:16 mentions “Paul’s sister’s son” and here Luke slips up and reveals that Paul Saul is not a Jew but Paul is a Herodian!
...
“Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” When the centurion heard this, he went to the tribune and said to him, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.” So the tribune came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” And he said, ‘Yes.'” (Acts 22:25-27)

Inductive reasoning shows that the sister in “Paul’s sister’s son” Acts 23:16 would have to be his step-sister Salome, the daughter of Herodias, the wife of Herod Antipas.

This implies that Paul is a Herodian, the son of Herod Antipas and his first wife Phasaelis who was the daughter of King Aretas IV of the Nabataeans and his queen Chuldu. Herod’s first marriage had been prearranged by Herod the Great to preserve peace with King Aretas IV. (Herod the Great’s mother was a Nabataean.) When Herod Antipas divorced Phasaelis to marry Herodias, John the Baptist opposed him, which lead to his beheading, and it caused a war with the Nabataeans that Herod Antipas lost. It is for this reason that Paul’s ancestry was concealed.

The son in “Paul’s sister’s son” Acts 23:16 would be Timothy (Herod, son of Aristobulus and Salome, the daughter of Herodias) who was made the crown prince of Agrippa II who was childless. His presence is likely because his brother is present: Paul is accused of taking Trophimus (Aristobulus, the brother of Timothy) into the Temple in Acts 21:28-29.

I'm speechless: Christianity was hijacked by the Idumeans, in the person of a son of Herod's ex-wife (perhaps by Herod), whose pedigree was airbrushed out of the Constantinian/Churchunist canon when the anti-Christan Faulines were incorporated.

And it gets even worse...

[ebion]

IF we accept Acts 22:28

The commander answered, “I acquired this citizenship for a large sum of money.” And Paul said, “But I was actually born a citizen.”

Then Paul in the 1st century CE is claiming full citizenship with all that entailed. Later one would have to distinguish between Honestiores_and_humiliores but not in Paul's time.

And the Britannica is saying Herod (the Great) got citizenship bestowed as a gift from Julius Caesar, not just as a matter of paper-pushing/due-course for tyrants who worked for Rome. It would only extend to immediate family.

[DCHindley]

According to Josephus, Herod was the son or grandson of an Idumean convert.

From what I understand, Judean law does allow conversion, always culminating in circumcision and law observance. There were certain restrictions on who the convert could marry but generally their children were considered fully Judean at that point. Herod was NOT a convert himself, he was a Judean, and practiced Judean law (interpreted liberally maybe, like on marriage and image displays, like many Judeans living in the Diaspora).

Manumission is of course something else from conversion. In some ways, the transition from non-Roman status (in this case being a slave) to Roman citizenship, is similar in that it involves some restriction on taking higher level government jobs & social rank, but in theory their children were fully free and full Roman citizens (exception was a daughter could not marry a high ranking Roman official, I think).

Fabian Udoh had covered Herod's honors and such in his book To Caesar What Is Caesar’s: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine (63 B.C.E.-70 C.E.) (2005). Brown Judaic Studies republished it in 2020 with a new preface and slightly different title To Caesar What Is Caesar’s: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine (2020). The Brown version is 100% free to download.

DCH

[lclapshaw]

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

Turns out that is a very good question, especially if you include step-sisters in the definition! Remember my contention that the Author of Acts wields a subtle but double-edged pen: if Paul was this important surely his (step)sister was too!!

Faul says he's a relative of Herod (Rom. 16:11). And the Author of Acts tells us that Manaen "had been brought up with Herod the tetrach* and Saul[Paul]" (Acts. 13:1 [KJV] *=comma removed) So that places him very close to Herod: a nephew or perhaps a son by an ex-wife. And he has Roman citizenship (Acts 22:25), a rare priviledge reserved for the Herodians who ruled (with the support Roman force of arms).

If Herod's first wife Phasaelis was born around 3 BC and married Herod around the age of 12 (sic), then she would have been married to Herod for 17 years before he divorced her in 26 AD. "There is a high likelihood that the marriage was arranged by Augustus, as he wanted the vassals of the Roman Empire to keep the peace between their kingdoms through intermarriage" (Tomasino, Anthony J. The World of Jesus p. 65) A princess of a Nabatean King, married to the prince and tetrarch Herod, for 17 of her peak childbearing years...

From Paul Was The Son of Herod Antipas:

Acts 23:16 mentions “Paul’s sister’s son” and here Luke slips up and reveals that Paul Saul is not a Jew but Paul is a Herodian!
...
“Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” When the centurion heard this, he went to the tribune and said to him, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.” So the tribune came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” And he said, ‘Yes.'” (Acts 22:25-27)

Inductive reasoning shows that the sister in “Paul’s sister’s son” Acts 23:16 would have to be his step-sister Salome, the daughter of Herodias, the wife of Herod Antipas.

This implies that Paul is a Herodian, the son of Herod Antipas and his first wife Phasaelis who was the daughter of King Aretas IV of the Nabataeans and his queen Chuldu. Herod’s first marriage had been prearranged by Herod the Great to preserve peace with King Aretas IV. (Herod the Great’s mother was a Nabataean.) When Herod Antipas divorced Phasaelis to marry Herodias, John the Baptist opposed him, which lead to his beheading, and it caused a war with the Nabataeans that Herod Antipas lost. It is for this reason that Paul’s ancestry was concealed.

The son in “Paul’s sister’s son” Acts 23:16 would be Timothy (Herod, son of Aristobulus and Salome, the daughter of Herodias) who was made the crown prince of Agrippa II who was childless. His presence is likely because his brother is present: Paul is accused of taking Trophimus (Aristobulus, the brother of Timothy) into the Temple in Acts 21:28-29.

I'm speechless: Christianity was hijacked by the Idumeans, in the person of a son of Herod, whose pedigree was airbrushed out of the Constantinian/Churchunist canon when they incorporated the anti-Christan Faulines.

And it gets even worse...

While some greet Acts 23:16 with an eye roll, others see an opportunity to roll with Idumeans.

I will never tire of the seemingly endless POV ( point of view, not RON (whatever that might be)) that is inherent to this literary subject.