Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

robert j wrote: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:47 pm
outhouse wrote:
robert j wrote: (referring to some translations of Gal 1:13) where the term "violently" has been inserted. "Violently" does not occur in the Greek text
I don't think any persecutions have ever been listed that were not violent.

DO YOU have any examples of literary persecutions???
Yes, Galatians 1:13 describes Paul's pursuing as extreme, and he claims that he was "endeavoring to destroy", but that does not necessarily imply violence for certainly one can endeavor to destroy ideas, doctrines, and beliefs with rhetoric. That could include impassioned arguments or casting aspersions --- but physical violence is not specified.

Your comment and question here focus on the "persecution". The Greek word Paul uses here is ἐδίωκον/διώκω (I was pursuing or persecuting/I pursue or I persecute). The term itself as used by Paul does not necessarily imply violence. For examples ---

See that no one has repaid to anyone evil for evil, but always pursue (διώκετε) the good also toward one another and toward all. (1 Thessalonians 5:15)


Earnestly pursue (διώκετε) love, and earnestly desire spiritual gifts, and especially that you might prophesy. (1 Cor 14:1)

So the word itself can be used to pursue love, or to pursue a faith and try to destroy it. But the concept of violence is not inherent.

Without the "traditions" in Acts in mind, there is no real justification for inserting the word "violently" into the translation of Galatians 1:13.

Paul flat states he did some bad things here. No other way to interpret such with credibility.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by robert j »

outhouse wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:35 pm
robert j wrote: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:47 pm
outhouse wrote:
robert j wrote: (referring to some translations of Gal 1:13) where the term "violently" has been inserted. "Violently" does not occur in the Greek text
I don't think any persecutions have ever been listed that were not violent.

DO YOU have any examples of literary persecutions???
Yes, Galatians 1:13 describes Paul's pursuing as extreme, and he claims that he was "endeavoring to destroy", but that does not necessarily imply violence for certainly one can endeavor to destroy ideas, doctrines, and beliefs with rhetoric. That could include impassioned arguments or casting aspersions --- but physical violence is not specified.

Your comment and question here focus on the "persecution". The Greek word Paul uses here is ἐδίωκον/διώκω (I was pursuing or persecuting/I pursue or I persecute). The term itself as used by Paul does not necessarily imply violence. For examples ---

See that no one has repaid to anyone evil for evil, but always pursue (διώκετε) the good also toward one another and toward all. (1 Thessalonians 5:15)


Earnestly pursue (διώκετε) love, and earnestly desire spiritual gifts, and especially that you might prophesy. (1 Cor 14:1)

So the word itself can be used to pursue love, or to pursue a faith and try to destroy it. But the concept of violence is not inherent.

Without the "traditions" in Acts in mind, there is no real justification for inserting the word "violently" into the translation of Galatians 1:13.

Paul flat states he did some bad things here. No other way to interpret such with credibility.
You can interpret the verse however you see fit.

However, as you well know, this discussion was about appropriate translation. I am just fine with a literal translation of the verse --- a verse in which a term for “violently” is not found in the extant Greek manuscripts. Paul's claim of pursuing here might have been intended to involve violence, or might have been intended to involve only impassioned arguments.

But imposing blatant interpretation and bias into a translation is a practice that I have at times pursued to an extreme degree and tried to destroy. And I can do that without punching anyone in the nose.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

robert j wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:34 pm But imposing blatant interpretation and bias into a translation is a practice that I have at times pursued to an extreme degree and tried to destroy. And I can do that without punching anyone in the nose.
Oh im sorry, but its fallacy time for you. many professors have stated such. You are no scholar, just the opposite in fact.


Persecution had believed his violent persecution of the church to be an indication of his zeal for his religion;[Phil. 3:6]
he now believed Jewish hostility toward the church was sinful opposition that would incur God's wrath;[1 Thess. 2:14–16] [9]:236 he believed he was halted by Christ when his fury was at its height;[Acts 9:1–2] It was "through zeal" that he persecuted the Church,[Philippians 3:6] and he obtained mercy because he had "acted ignorantly in unbelief".[1 Tim. 1:13][37]


Please have this changed if you have correct info, your well known personal bias does not cut it with me.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

Where I really blame your failure is in that the anthropology of this time period, which shows these were all very violent people, who did terrible things in the name of religion. While I do not use Acts, its descriptions were never vilified as rhetoric, or as lies or exaggerations, its reporting of said violence was not fictional or even viewed as such in context. This was a time of torture, starvation, death and disease. Pauls usage is actually an understatement by all credible accounts, without Acts. With Acts he has taken part in a murder, and its my opinion any part he had was down played.

Jesus is even said to stop a stoning, stoning was popular for perceived actions against their god/s

While Pauline text does exaggerate greatly as all text did, look at what Paul is said to have gone through on his journeys.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by DCHindley »

outhouse wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:34 pm Where I really blame your failure is in that the anthropology of this time period, which shows these were all very violent people, who did terrible things in the name of religion. While I do not use Acts, its descriptions were never vilified as rhetoric, or as lies or exaggerations, its reporting of said violence was not fictional or even viewed as such in context. This was a time of torture, starvation, death and disease. Pauls usage is actually an understatement by all credible accounts, without Acts. With Acts he has taken part in a murder, and its my opinion any part he had was down played.

Jesus is even said to stop a stoning, stoning was popular for perceived actions against their god/s

While Pauline text does exaggerate greatly as all text did, look at what Paul is said to have gone through on his journeys.
out,

My understanding, from reading sources like Josephus, etc., and Fabian Udoh's book on Roman taxation, laws, etc., was that almost all government action was carefully controlled. Judeans, regardless of where they lived in the empire, were considered an "Ethnos" (a distinct and identifiable people) and had been given the right to self-regulate through their own "courts" which were legal as well as deliberative bodies of elders.

This was mainly because Judeans, especially in the Diaspora, were unwilling to participate in civic cults of the towns, colonies & cities where they lived (sacrifices to idols, oaths to the divine emperor, et cetera), so were not local citizens. Very few would have had Roman citizenship. They might have negotiated some level of consultative input into the regional affairs, but were considered "foreigners" and thus apart from the local governments.

The Romans appointed a titular head of the Ethnos, the Ethnarch (such as Hyrcanus II, Herod the Great, Archelaeus, Agrippa I, and probably the High Priests during periods when the Romans set up caretaker governments between regents). However, this titular head, even the HP, did not have much legal authority outside of Judea, but existed as a advocate for the Judean peoples before the Romans.

The Temple Police served as the enforcers in Judea, but outside, the HPs probably could only present warrants to the local Judean elders and recommend actions. The HP was a ritual post mainly, not like the head of a "chain of command." However, those local Judean councils and associated courts were the absolute final authority over other Judeans under their jurisdictions, and could arrest and detain the heterodox and apply some level of punishment.

There were probably occasions where vigilante "justice" was applied when the Judean legal standards called for death, since the local elders probably did not have authority to apply the death sentence. I could dig up some references if you are interested.

What I think Acts was suggesting was that Saul/Paul was carrying some of these "warrants" from the HP to the Judean elders of regional centers in the eastern empire, indicating what the HP considered good practices for Judeans, and perhaps requesting firm actions against the heterodox, but IMHO the rules could only have been very general covering what were the "minimum standards" for one to be considered a Judean, and subject to the local elders.

Paul himself (assuming the general authenticity of the Pauline letters to regional congregations) just says he was exceedingly zealous in the application of ancestral laws and practices. Considering the things he says the local Judean elders did to spite and thwart him for spreading his heterodox POV, he may well have at one time recommended to these same authorities that they do the very same things to those faithful gentiles that were now his friends. Beatings, whippings, you get the idea.

I do not think that Judeans resident in the Diaspora were disposed to be too strict, as inscriptions record many many cases where synagogues and Judeans of the Diaspora got along very cozily with pagan patrons, even letting them equate the Judean god with some local god. Of course the local Judeans did not really think that, but they were willing to let the local pagans think so for the sake of getting along.

Now in the homeland, well, that is another matter. While religious nationalism ruled the day there, there were still religious courts, and plenty of gentiles who lived there in Greek cities, Roman colonies, and as tenant farmers on private estates controlled by Roman elites, had their own protections (sort of the reverse of the situation in the Diaspora).

DCH :goodmorning:
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by robert j »

outhouse wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:25 pm Oh im sorry, but its fallacy time for you...
Preferring a literal translation of this verse does not constitute a fallacy.
robert j wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:34 pm ... as you well know, this discussion was about appropriate translation. I am just fine with a literal translation of the verse --- a verse in which a term for “violently” is not found in the extant Greek manuscripts. Paul's claim of pursuing here might have been intended to involve violence, or might have been intended to involve only impassioned arguments.
Like I said ---
robert j wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:34 pm You can interpret the verse however you see fit.
Everyone is welcome to their opinion.

As far as discussing the interpretation of this verse with you --- I'm just not interested. You’ll have to find someone else who might be willing to play along.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by iskander »

outhouse wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:25 pm ...

Persecution had believed his violent persecution of the church to be an indication of his zeal for his religion;[Phil. 3:6]
he now believed Jewish hostility toward the church was sinful opposition that would incur God's wrath;[1 Thess. 2:14–16] [9]:236 he believed he was halted by Christ when his fury was at its height;[Acts 9:1–2] It was "through zeal" that he persecuted the Church,[Philippians 3:6] and he obtained mercy because he had "acted ignorantly in unbelief".[1 Tim. 1:13][37]


Please have this changed if you have correct info, your well known personal bias does not cut it with me.
This is what Pau8l is saying, more or less :)

13, 14. " My early education is a proof that I did not receive the gospel
from man. I was brought up in a rigid school of ritualism, directly opposed to the liberty of the gospel. I was from age and temper a staunch adherent of the principles of that school. Acting upon them, I relentlessly persecuted the Christian brotherhood. No human agency, therefore, could have brought about the change. It required a direct interposition from God."
THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL. II. THE THIRD APOSTOLIC JOURNEY. 3. EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
INTEODUCTION, NOTES, AND DISSERTATIONS.
BY J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D.HULSEAN PEOFESSOK OF DIVINITT, AND FELLOW OF TRINITT COLLEGE,
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:21 am
outhouse wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:34 pm Where I really blame your failure is in that the anthropology of this time period, which shows these were all very violent people, who did terrible things in the name of religion. While I do not use Acts, its descriptions were never vilified as rhetoric, or as lies or exaggerations, its reporting of said violence was not fictional or even viewed as such in context. This was a time of torture, starvation, death and disease. Pauls usage is actually an understatement by all credible accounts, without Acts. With Acts he has taken part in a murder, and its my opinion any part he had was down played.

Jesus is even said to stop a stoning, stoning was popular for perceived actions against their god/s

While Pauline text does exaggerate greatly as all text did, look at what Paul is said to have gone through on his journeys.
out,



This was mainly because Judeans, especially in the Diaspora, were unwilling to participate in civic cults of the towns, colonies & cities where they lived (sacrifices to idols, oaths to the divine emperor, et cetera), so were not local citizens. Very few would have had Roman citizenship. They might have negotiated some level of consultative input into the regional affairs, but were considered "foreigners" and thus apart from the local governments.

The Romans appointed a titular head of the Ethnos, the Ethnarch (such as Hyrcanus II, Herod the Great, Archelaeus, Agrippa I, and probably the High Priests during periods when the Romans set up caretaker governments between regents). However, this titular head, even the HP, did not have much legal authority outside of Judea, but existed as a advocate for the Judean peoples before the Romans.

The Temple Police served as the enforcers in Judea, but outside, the HPs probably could only present warrants to the local Judean elders and recommend actions. The HP was a ritual post mainly, not like the head of a "chain of command." However, those local Judean councils and associated courts were the absolute final authority over other Judeans under their jurisdictions, and could arrest and detain the heterodox and apply some level of punishment.



DCH :goodmorning:
Were not dealing with Israel or Judea in context, as soon as martyrdom began and people developed the good news concept, these traditions were already all over the Roman Empire due to pilgrams and gentiles and proselytes who attended Passover and returned said traditions back to their pater familias / communities. Example of such would be how paus exaggerated accounts that show persecution.

There is also the "possibility" Pauline persecution tradition started from him actually being hired to hunt sect members down. In this time period, police actions were hired out privately as there was no real governmental police force as we know it beyond military action.

Its safe to say the temple was always on shaky ground and the violence of a single martyr could easily start unrest in the tense crowds during these drunken Passovers.

I would say that such a "possibility" would have a Roman blessing
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse »

iskander wrote: Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:04 am
13, 14. " My early education is a proof that I did not receive the gospel
from man.
In context, this was directly related to placing his authority and independence from the Jerusalem sect.

It is not literal in context.
This is what Pau8l is saying, more or less
That is one version. Scholars are all over the board on interpretation granted, this is one.

I like how the late Marvin Meyers used it, as Paul was known to have done some pretty bad things, and without anyone refuting Acts, I don't think we can throw that context out. I do agree Acts can only be used with extreme caution, but when it comes to Pauline traditions, due to the contradictions it very well could be independent.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by iskander »

outhouse wrote: Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:22 am
iskander wrote: Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:04 am
13, 14. " My early education is a proof that I did not receive the gospel
from man.
In context, this was directly related to placing his authority and independence from the Jerusalem "Teachers".
It is not literal in context.
This is what Pau8l is saying, more or less
That is one version. Scholars are all over the board on interpretation granted, this is one.

I like how the late Marvin Meyers used it, as Paul was known to have done some pretty bad things, and without anyone refuting Acts, I don't think we can throw that context out. I do agree Acts can only be used with extreme caution, but when it comes to Pauline traditions, due to the contradictions it very well could be independent.
Yes, Galatians is about his struggle to nullify the Jerusalem "Teachers":
The Paradigmatic Rhetoric of Paul's Seven Authentic Letters
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=433&hilit=martyn&start=30
The Teachers
Re: The Paradigmatic Rhetoric of Paul's Seven Authentic Lett
Post by beowulf » Mon Mar 10, 2014 9:45 am
PhilosopherJay wrote
Paul's whole discussion of his fights with the Jews in Jerusalem would be a long and pointless digression unless these Jews were the same people trying to get the Galatians to follow Jewish laws.
Yes, I think you are right . J. Louis Martyn says this about the conflict in Galatia:

Galatians (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries) [Paperback]
J. Louis Martyn (Author
Series: The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries
Paperback: 638 pages
Publisher: Yale University Press (December 23, 2004)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0300139853
ISBN-13: 978-0300139853

Page 118- 119


“Data in the letter [Galatians] shows the Teachers [ the name given by J. Louis Martyn to the opponents of Paul in the church of Galatia] to have connections both with Diaspora Judaism and with Palestinian, Christian Judaism....
From Galatians itself, we can also see that the Teachers are in touch with- indeed , understand themselves to represent- a powerful circle of Christian Jews in the Jerusalem church, a group utterly zealous for observance of the Law ( comments #25.#45.and #46)”

The teaching:
Jewish study bible
Deuteronomy
27.26 Cursed be who will not uphold the terms of this Teaching and observe them-- and all the people shall say , Amen


The Stone edition of , the Chumash
Devarim
27.26 Accursed is one who will not uphold the words of this Torah, to perform them. And the entire people shall say , Amen

Note 26 who will not uphold. The nation accepted a curse upon anyone who does not uphold all the Torah(Rashi)

Ramban explains this to mean that every Jew must accept the Torah's validity in full, and dare not claim that even one of its commandments is not relevant.

However , this curse is not imposed on any Jew who commits a sin, only on one who denies a part of the Torah is God given or relevant.

Ranban cites approvingly a view in the Jerusalem Talmud (Sotah 7.4) that this curse applies to anyone who can influence others to be loyal to the Torah , but does not care to do so, especially people in position of authority, who have the power to mold the behavior of others.

Even someone who studies the Torah and is rigorously observant , but unconcern about the shortcomings of others, even though he can help them, is included in this curse.
...
END OF NOTE
Last edited by iskander on Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:51 am, edited 3 times in total.
Post Reply