Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:35 pm
*Paul's chronology is obviously important for early Christian history. And while absolute
dates for Paul's conversion cannot be firm, and have not been agreed upon, it has been
claimed that a "majority" of scholars traditionally favor a date of c.36 C.E. for this event
(1),while those specializing in the study of Luke's chronology in Acts also feel a date of
c.36 is most likely for Paul's becoming Christian (2).
*Other scholars' opinions however must not be overlooked, for some insist that Paul
became a Christian two to three, at most five, years after the crucifixion of Jesus (3),
and that Paul's conversion "cannot" be dated later than c.34 C.E.(4).
*Now this chronology involves that of King Aretas of the Nabateans (2 Cor 11:32), who
probably reigned from 8 B.C.E. to 39/40 C.E.(5), whose rule over Damascus "must have
been" after 37 C.E. according to some scholars (6), for indeed the absence of coins
minted under the emperors Gaius and Claudius indicate that Damascus passed under the rule of Aretas soon after the death of the emperor Tiberius (16th March, 37 C.E.):(7).This must date Paul's activities there before 41 C.E. (8), while some are more firm is dating Aretas' rule over the ethnic Nabateans at Damascus to 37-39 (9).
*After his outright betrayal of Judaism, and his mission, Paul may well have been a
wanted man in official Jewish circles, and we may thus note his report of only one
short visit to Jerusalem in the fourteen years which followed his conversion (Gal 1:18-
2:1), as well as the later report of those who, probably c.40 C.E., were trying to kill
him (Acts 9:29).
*In any case the desert of Nabatean Arabia would have made a suitable refuge for
Paul c.36 C.E., and it is there that he may have retreated from Jewish authorities
(Gal 1:17). For at this time the Nabatean king was at war with the king of the Jews (10).
*However an alternate (or additional) motive for desert retreat may be proposed by
way of analogy. For the rabbinic literature conveys the tradition of the Rabbi Laqish,
who, after learning a traditional collection of teachings from another master, spent
three months penetrating the meaning and usage of what he had learned (11).
*And so perhaps upon his conversion Paul retreated from society in order to better
absorb the gospel. In either case we might provisionally date Paul's conversion to
c.36/7 C.E. This dating allows us to draw the parallel between the reported killing
of Stephen (Acts 7) and the killing of James in 62. For Josephus tells us that the
Jewish Sanhedrin exploited the interstice between governors in order to move
against James (12), and that c.36 Pontius Pilate was recalled as governor of Judea
and replaced by Marcellus (13).
*The theory that Stephen was killed by those who took advantage of the interval
between governors (c.36 C.E.) is not without it's problems, but they are problems
that have been considered as minor, and as not seriously undermining it (14).
In short, what occurred to James in 62 may have happened to Stephen c.36,
giving way to Paul's reported persecution of the church (Acts 9:1-2).
*Now Luke's story could give the impression that Stephen was effectively lynched
and killed by mob violence, since later Mishnaic law called for those stoned to
death to be buried in a communal tomb, with public mourning prohibited (15).
But if these precepts were violated (Acts 8:2), it would suggest that Stephen
was not really executed officially but by mob action.
*The historicity of the Stephen episode has been questioned in part because it
is considered doubtful if the Sanhedrin would hold session or allow itself to be
addressed at length in Greek, so that Luke's account is unlikely to derive from
a record of the proceedings (16).And since the evangelization of gentiles following
on the heels of rejection by Jews is a theme often repeated in Luke, the reliability
of the story may be further undermined (17), though if completely fabricated, one
would perhaps expect a stylized account (18).
*Further questions have been raised about whether Stephen with his view of the
law would have met with opposition in the Hellenistic Jewish synagogue (Acts 6:9):
(19), and the observation that Luke imports so many elements from the trial of
Jesus into his account of the trial of Stephen suggests that it would be "method-
ologically wrong to try to deduce something of Stephen's real history from the
details of Acts"(20).
*But Stephen in fact may have been "condemned not for his Hellenistic attitude
to the Law, but for his Christian attitude"(19), while a pre-70 inscription from
Jerusalem testifies to the existence of a "synagogue of the freedmen"(cf.Acts 6:9):
(21).
*The absence of the outgoing governor would only have facilitated the move
against Stephen and the Christians, official or unofficial, such as the reported
attack made on Paul by his Jewish opponents at Corinth (Acts 18:1-17),possibly
contrived by opportunists trying to exploit the inexperience of the new governor
(22).
*Indeed the physical absence of authority figures could lead to various types of
misbehavior among Jews normally kept under control. Thus when a Jewish mob
was beating Paul they stopped beating him when they saw the local Roman
commander approaching with his troops (Acts 21:32).
*Likewise when Judea was briefly restored to autonomy under Herod Agrippa I,
a man named Simon, reputed for his knowledge of the law, roused the citizens
of Jerusalem in the king's absence in order to exclude king Herod from the
Temple, which was restricted to native Jews (23).
*We may also note the analogy of debtors exploiting the interstice between
governors by burning the archives containing the record of their debts (24),
as well as the early tradition that when the Roman garrison was expelled
from Jerusalem, the citizens began executing "evildoers"(25).
*If the enemies of the Christians made their move against Stephen and the
others about 36/7 C.E., they could also have benefitted from Roman
distractions which included war with the Nabateans (26), and the death of
the emperor Tiberius (27), lending further support for c.36 C.E. as the
possible date for Stephen's martyrdom (28), and the conversion of Paul
which reportedly followed soon after.
Notes:
1.Brown "Introduction To The New Testament" p.428-9.
Dibelius "Book Of Acts" p.30,thought that "the interval between the crucifixion..
and the conversion of Paul cannot be determined even approximately from" Acts.
Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.2,p.499,lists nine scholars who list various
dates for Paul's conversion between 30 and 40 C.E.
Haenchen "Acts Of The Apostles" p.71,proposes a date of c.35 for Paul's conversion,
with the Jerusalem Conference c.48 C.E.
2.Fitzmyer "Anchor Bible" vol.31,p.138-9.
The complaints within the church which had reportedly preceded Paul's conversion
(Acts 6:1) had apparently been heard for some time, according to the interpretation
of Luke's Greek offered by Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.2,p.251n43,n44.
3.Koester "From Jesus To The Gospels" p.209n31.
Dunn "Christianity In The Making" v.1,p.855,thinks that since Paul was able to claim
an apparition so emphatically (1Cor 9:1),and had his story accepted by the Jerusalem
leaders, then his sighting must have occurred not long after theirs.
Koester "Paul And His World" p.101:"Paul was called no later than 35 C.E."
4.Dodd "Parables Of The Kingdom" p.57n1.
5.Fitzmyer "Anchor Bible" v.31,p.433.
6.Walther and Orr "Anchor Bible" v.32,p.7n6.
Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.2,p.503/n20,on scholars who think the transfer of
Damascus to Nabatean control probably occurred early in the reign of Gaius (i.e. not
before the summer of 37 C.E.).The conclusion of these scholars is that Paul's escape
occurred 37-39/40 C.E., with Aretas' death placed 39/40.
7.Schiffman and Vander Kam "Encyclopedia Of The Dead Sea Scrolls" v.1,p.165.
8.Ludemann "Acts Of The Apostles" p.133.
9.Crossan and Reed "In Search Of Paul" p.31.
Haenchen "Acts Of The Apostles" p.63/n1,dates the death of Aretas to 40.With no
Roman coins from Damascus dating 37-54 C.E., it is suggested that Gaius presented
Damascus to the Nabateans in 37.
10.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 18.5.1
11.Gerhardsson "Memory And Manuscript" p.117.
12.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 20.9.1
13.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 18.4.2.89
14.Fitzmyer "Anchor Bible" v.31,p.391.
Theissen and Merz "The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide" p.602-3,
think that the killing of James at the interval between governors indicates
that the Jews did not have the power of the death penalty. That the
Sanhedrin did not have jurisdiction in capitol cases c.30 C.E. is suggested
by both the Talmud (Abodah Zarah 8b) and the Gospels (John 18:31).
15.Mishna Sanhedrin 6.6.
Fitzmyer "Anchor Bible" v.31,p.397.
Haenchen "Acts Of The Apostles" p.293-4.
16.Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.2,p.266.
Fitzmyer "Anchor Bible" v.31,p.365,says it builds on "inherited tradition,
possibly Antiochene".
17.Haenchen "Acts Of The Apostles" p.298.
18.Dibelius "Book Of Acts" p.89-90.
19.Gutrod in Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament v.4,p.1068.
20.Haenchen "Acts Of The Apostles" p.274.
21.Strathmann in Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament v.4,p.265/n3.
22.Munck "Anchor Bible" v.31,p.177-8.
23.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 19.7.4.332.
Jeremias "Jerusalem In The Time Of Jesus" p.332,notes that Agrippa I was
descended from proselytes.
24.Josephus "Judean War" 7.3.4.
Safrai and Stern "The Jewish People In The First Century" v.1,p.141.
25.Brown "Death Of The Messiah" p.365.
26.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 18.5.3
27.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 18.6.10.224
28.Brown "Introduction To The New Testament" p.213.
dates for Paul's conversion cannot be firm, and have not been agreed upon, it has been
claimed that a "majority" of scholars traditionally favor a date of c.36 C.E. for this event
(1),while those specializing in the study of Luke's chronology in Acts also feel a date of
c.36 is most likely for Paul's becoming Christian (2).
*Other scholars' opinions however must not be overlooked, for some insist that Paul
became a Christian two to three, at most five, years after the crucifixion of Jesus (3),
and that Paul's conversion "cannot" be dated later than c.34 C.E.(4).
*Now this chronology involves that of King Aretas of the Nabateans (2 Cor 11:32), who
probably reigned from 8 B.C.E. to 39/40 C.E.(5), whose rule over Damascus "must have
been" after 37 C.E. according to some scholars (6), for indeed the absence of coins
minted under the emperors Gaius and Claudius indicate that Damascus passed under the rule of Aretas soon after the death of the emperor Tiberius (16th March, 37 C.E.):(7).This must date Paul's activities there before 41 C.E. (8), while some are more firm is dating Aretas' rule over the ethnic Nabateans at Damascus to 37-39 (9).
*After his outright betrayal of Judaism, and his mission, Paul may well have been a
wanted man in official Jewish circles, and we may thus note his report of only one
short visit to Jerusalem in the fourteen years which followed his conversion (Gal 1:18-
2:1), as well as the later report of those who, probably c.40 C.E., were trying to kill
him (Acts 9:29).
*In any case the desert of Nabatean Arabia would have made a suitable refuge for
Paul c.36 C.E., and it is there that he may have retreated from Jewish authorities
(Gal 1:17). For at this time the Nabatean king was at war with the king of the Jews (10).
*However an alternate (or additional) motive for desert retreat may be proposed by
way of analogy. For the rabbinic literature conveys the tradition of the Rabbi Laqish,
who, after learning a traditional collection of teachings from another master, spent
three months penetrating the meaning and usage of what he had learned (11).
*And so perhaps upon his conversion Paul retreated from society in order to better
absorb the gospel. In either case we might provisionally date Paul's conversion to
c.36/7 C.E. This dating allows us to draw the parallel between the reported killing
of Stephen (Acts 7) and the killing of James in 62. For Josephus tells us that the
Jewish Sanhedrin exploited the interstice between governors in order to move
against James (12), and that c.36 Pontius Pilate was recalled as governor of Judea
and replaced by Marcellus (13).
*The theory that Stephen was killed by those who took advantage of the interval
between governors (c.36 C.E.) is not without it's problems, but they are problems
that have been considered as minor, and as not seriously undermining it (14).
In short, what occurred to James in 62 may have happened to Stephen c.36,
giving way to Paul's reported persecution of the church (Acts 9:1-2).
*Now Luke's story could give the impression that Stephen was effectively lynched
and killed by mob violence, since later Mishnaic law called for those stoned to
death to be buried in a communal tomb, with public mourning prohibited (15).
But if these precepts were violated (Acts 8:2), it would suggest that Stephen
was not really executed officially but by mob action.
*The historicity of the Stephen episode has been questioned in part because it
is considered doubtful if the Sanhedrin would hold session or allow itself to be
addressed at length in Greek, so that Luke's account is unlikely to derive from
a record of the proceedings (16).And since the evangelization of gentiles following
on the heels of rejection by Jews is a theme often repeated in Luke, the reliability
of the story may be further undermined (17), though if completely fabricated, one
would perhaps expect a stylized account (18).
*Further questions have been raised about whether Stephen with his view of the
law would have met with opposition in the Hellenistic Jewish synagogue (Acts 6:9):
(19), and the observation that Luke imports so many elements from the trial of
Jesus into his account of the trial of Stephen suggests that it would be "method-
ologically wrong to try to deduce something of Stephen's real history from the
details of Acts"(20).
*But Stephen in fact may have been "condemned not for his Hellenistic attitude
to the Law, but for his Christian attitude"(19), while a pre-70 inscription from
Jerusalem testifies to the existence of a "synagogue of the freedmen"(cf.Acts 6:9):
(21).
*The absence of the outgoing governor would only have facilitated the move
against Stephen and the Christians, official or unofficial, such as the reported
attack made on Paul by his Jewish opponents at Corinth (Acts 18:1-17),possibly
contrived by opportunists trying to exploit the inexperience of the new governor
(22).
*Indeed the physical absence of authority figures could lead to various types of
misbehavior among Jews normally kept under control. Thus when a Jewish mob
was beating Paul they stopped beating him when they saw the local Roman
commander approaching with his troops (Acts 21:32).
*Likewise when Judea was briefly restored to autonomy under Herod Agrippa I,
a man named Simon, reputed for his knowledge of the law, roused the citizens
of Jerusalem in the king's absence in order to exclude king Herod from the
Temple, which was restricted to native Jews (23).
*We may also note the analogy of debtors exploiting the interstice between
governors by burning the archives containing the record of their debts (24),
as well as the early tradition that when the Roman garrison was expelled
from Jerusalem, the citizens began executing "evildoers"(25).
*If the enemies of the Christians made their move against Stephen and the
others about 36/7 C.E., they could also have benefitted from Roman
distractions which included war with the Nabateans (26), and the death of
the emperor Tiberius (27), lending further support for c.36 C.E. as the
possible date for Stephen's martyrdom (28), and the conversion of Paul
which reportedly followed soon after.
Notes:
1.Brown "Introduction To The New Testament" p.428-9.
Dibelius "Book Of Acts" p.30,thought that "the interval between the crucifixion..
and the conversion of Paul cannot be determined even approximately from" Acts.
Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.2,p.499,lists nine scholars who list various
dates for Paul's conversion between 30 and 40 C.E.
Haenchen "Acts Of The Apostles" p.71,proposes a date of c.35 for Paul's conversion,
with the Jerusalem Conference c.48 C.E.
2.Fitzmyer "Anchor Bible" vol.31,p.138-9.
The complaints within the church which had reportedly preceded Paul's conversion
(Acts 6:1) had apparently been heard for some time, according to the interpretation
of Luke's Greek offered by Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.2,p.251n43,n44.
3.Koester "From Jesus To The Gospels" p.209n31.
Dunn "Christianity In The Making" v.1,p.855,thinks that since Paul was able to claim
an apparition so emphatically (1Cor 9:1),and had his story accepted by the Jerusalem
leaders, then his sighting must have occurred not long after theirs.
Koester "Paul And His World" p.101:"Paul was called no later than 35 C.E."
4.Dodd "Parables Of The Kingdom" p.57n1.
5.Fitzmyer "Anchor Bible" v.31,p.433.
6.Walther and Orr "Anchor Bible" v.32,p.7n6.
Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.2,p.503/n20,on scholars who think the transfer of
Damascus to Nabatean control probably occurred early in the reign of Gaius (i.e. not
before the summer of 37 C.E.).The conclusion of these scholars is that Paul's escape
occurred 37-39/40 C.E., with Aretas' death placed 39/40.
7.Schiffman and Vander Kam "Encyclopedia Of The Dead Sea Scrolls" v.1,p.165.
8.Ludemann "Acts Of The Apostles" p.133.
9.Crossan and Reed "In Search Of Paul" p.31.
Haenchen "Acts Of The Apostles" p.63/n1,dates the death of Aretas to 40.With no
Roman coins from Damascus dating 37-54 C.E., it is suggested that Gaius presented
Damascus to the Nabateans in 37.
10.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 18.5.1
11.Gerhardsson "Memory And Manuscript" p.117.
12.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 20.9.1
13.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 18.4.2.89
14.Fitzmyer "Anchor Bible" v.31,p.391.
Theissen and Merz "The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide" p.602-3,
think that the killing of James at the interval between governors indicates
that the Jews did not have the power of the death penalty. That the
Sanhedrin did not have jurisdiction in capitol cases c.30 C.E. is suggested
by both the Talmud (Abodah Zarah 8b) and the Gospels (John 18:31).
15.Mishna Sanhedrin 6.6.
Fitzmyer "Anchor Bible" v.31,p.397.
Haenchen "Acts Of The Apostles" p.293-4.
16.Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.2,p.266.
Fitzmyer "Anchor Bible" v.31,p.365,says it builds on "inherited tradition,
possibly Antiochene".
17.Haenchen "Acts Of The Apostles" p.298.
18.Dibelius "Book Of Acts" p.89-90.
19.Gutrod in Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament v.4,p.1068.
20.Haenchen "Acts Of The Apostles" p.274.
21.Strathmann in Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament v.4,p.265/n3.
22.Munck "Anchor Bible" v.31,p.177-8.
23.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 19.7.4.332.
Jeremias "Jerusalem In The Time Of Jesus" p.332,notes that Agrippa I was
descended from proselytes.
24.Josephus "Judean War" 7.3.4.
Safrai and Stern "The Jewish People In The First Century" v.1,p.141.
25.Brown "Death Of The Messiah" p.365.
26.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 18.5.3
27.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 18.6.10.224
28.Brown "Introduction To The New Testament" p.213.