Paul was wealthy

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Bernard Muller,

This makes some sharp and good points.

I will try to respond to this and some other points in other posts over the next few days. Thanks.

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay,
According to that article (http://mises.org/daily/3663) dated 2009, from Joseph R. Peden, who taught history at Baruch College of the City University of New York. (a rather enigmatic fellow involved in anarcho-capitalism), the dinarius in the time of Diocletian (284 to 305) was almost worthless, at best a small fraction of its value during Paul's public life. Reminder: the costs of travelling from ORBIS are calculated from data during Diocletian's reign, not during Claudius & Nero's ones (about 250 years earlier).
Here is the relevant part of the article, with some comments (in []) and bolding of mine.

The basic coinage of the Roman Empire to this time — we're speaking now about 211 AD — was the silver denarius introduced by Augustus at about 95 percent silver at the end of the 1st century BC. The denarius continued for the better part of two centuries as the basic medium of exchange in the empire.

By the time of Trajan in 117 AD, the denarius was only about 85 percent silver, down from Augustus's 95 percent. By the age of Marcus Aurelius, in 180, it was down to about 75 percent silver. In Septimius's time it had dropped to 60 percent, and Caracalla evened it off at 50/50.

Caracalla was assassinated in 217. There then followed an age that historians refer to as the Age of the Barrack Emperors, because throughout the 3rd century all the emperors were soldiers and all of them came to their power by military coups of one sort or another.

There were about 26 legitimate emperors in this century and only one of them died a natural death. The rest either died in battle or were assassinated, which was totally unprecedented in Roman history — with two exceptions: Nero, a suicide, and Caligula, assassinated earlier.[What about Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Domitian, Commodus?]

Caracalla had also debased the gold coinage. Under Augustus this circulated at 45 coins to a pound of gold. Caracalla made it 50 to a pound of gold. Within 20 years after him it was circulating at 72 to a pound of gold, reduced to 60 at the end of the century by Diocletian, only to be raised again to 72 by Constantine. So even the gold coinage was in fact inflated — debased.

But the real crisis came after Caracalla, between 258 and 275, in a period of intense civil war and foreign invasions. The emperors simply abandoned, for all practical purposes, a silver coinage. By 268 there was only 0.5 percent silver in the denarius.

Prices in this period rose in most parts of the empire by nearly 1,000 percent. The only people who were getting paid in gold were the barbarian troops hired by the emperors. The barbarians were so barbarous [smart would be a more adequate word] that they would only accept gold in payment for their services.

The situation did not change until the accession of Diocletian in the year 284. Shortly after his accession he raised the weight of the gold coinage, the aureus, to 60 to the pound — this was from a low of 72.

But ten years later, he finally abandoned the silvered coinage, which by this time was simply a bronze coin dipped in silver rather quickly. He abandoned that completely and tried to issue a new silver coin, called the argenteus, struck at 96 coins to the pound of silver. The argenteus was fixed as equal to 50 of the denarii (the old coinage). It was designed to respond to the need for higher-tariffed coins in the marketplace, to reflect the inflation.

Diocletian also issued a new bronze coin tariffed at ten denarii, called the nummus. But less than a decade later, the nummus had gone from being tariffed at ten denarii to now equaling 20 denarii, and the argenteus had gone from 50 denarii to 100. In other words, despite Diocletian's efforts, the Empire suffered 100 percent inflation.

If you search on "inflation Roman empire" on Google, there are more websites on the topic but not as detailed.
Finally, from this website: http://shalomhabayit.blogspot.ca/2010/0 ... ation.html

That would explain the apparent extravagantly high cost of travelling in dinarii from the ORBIS website.

Cordially, Bernard

[Taws]

Saul/Paul (the self-appointed apostle), collected money from all "his" churches. How is it that Paul's letters were kept and published, yet there are no letters "to him"? He was a Pharisee (according to him) and a Roman citizen (how do you do that?). He began the first "Mega-Church" and received money from all his churches. Of course he was rich. He is the founder of the Money making churches we now see today all over the US and the world.

[steve43]

Paul collected money to give to the Church in Jerusalem, and certainly used some of for his own support and evangelizing. He trained as a priest in the second temple, and was probably trained as a Sadducee rather than Pharisee. His father was probably of Greek origin, and was probably Roman citizen through either service in the army, or possibly his grandfather served. Jewishness is determined by the mother.

No letters to Paul because he was executed in A.D. 64. A lot was lost in the mayhem, certainly his private letter collection.

[Garon]

Why doesn't Paul say who took over from him to harass the churches?

[outhouse]

Saul/Paul (the self-appointed apostle), collected money from all "his" churches..

They were not "his" churches. They were pater familias that he had issues with.

He may have founded some houses, or claimed to, but they were not "his" so to speak.

How is it that Paul's letters were kept and published, yet there are no letters "to him"?

There may have been, we only have a fraction of the scripture that once existed. The returning messages would have been seen as trash, even if Paul saved them, they would have been lost at his death.

Paul letters were occasional letters written in using rhetoric, they were small pieces of papyrus folded into a very small bundle, and then they would take a strip of papyrus from the edge almost like string and tie the bundle up. A slave would often do the delivering.

They were not published early on. Many we kept, copied by other ecclesia, possibly redacted and compiled on occasion. Our oldest reference is about 150 years after they were written so we don't have anything close to the original letters nor those that may have been wrote back if they ever did.

Some of his letters were not really two way correspondence.

Remember not everyone received Paul well, he was viewed as a heretic by many.

He was a Pharisee (according to him) and a Roman citizen (how do you do that?).

Have you heard of Hellenistic Judaism? It would have been common.

I wouldn't be surprised if Caiaphas wasn't a Roman citizen and many of the Sadducees.

Remember, there were different kinds of Roman citizens.

And Paul claimed many things, I have always personally doubted he was a Pharisee. It would be a common use of Ethos Rhetoric probably influenced by Aristotle's teachings. Paul wanted to make himself a bigshot to build credibility to get his teachings followed. It was a method of persuasion.

He began the first "Mega-Church" and received money from all his churches

He created nothing.

He flat tells us there were other teachers and other scriptures already in existence in the Diaspora.

We also know he persecuted the sects in the diaspora, so he was actually a very small cog in the overall movement. The man just had writing skills that were saved "BY SOME" and only "some" found importance in his theology. Only though hundreds of years of popularity was it ever canonized into what you know today.

Not all his pater familias would have given him money. Nor did he have the time to travel ALL of the Diaspora to go to different houses just for money raising.

We also have a absence of evidence he ever gave any money he said he was raising. The trail goes cold.

Of course he was rich

I disagree

One thing can be said about the educated, they can survive easier then the illiterate peasant classes.

Paul was a educated writer, if one could heal and put on a show, one could earn a living bilking the ignorant saps. But one would have to travel extensively to keep out of prison, and or keep from being beat down.

Paul wore those shoes.

Wealthy sometimes he may have possibly been, not always. He was said to be beaten and jailed way to much, shipwrecked ect ect

I doubt he was ever that wealthy.

. . He is the founder of the Money making churches we now see today all over the US and the world

I disagree.


A martyred man at Passover started it all in my opinion. The movement grew without Paul. So much so he is said to have hunted the original sect down and did violent things to them.

early on he was viewed as a heretic and as "apostle to the gentiles" even if self proclaimed, he found popularity with some.


The early movement Paul was a part of, was wide and varied, multi cultural and wide spread with a s many different beliefs, you would have a hard time imagining the diversity.

[outhouse]

Why doesn't Paul say who took over from him to harass the churches?

What are you trying to say here?

[outhouse]

Paul collected money to give to the Church in Jerusalem, and certainly used some of for his own support and evangelizing..

Probably.

He trained as a priest in the second temple,

Unknown, or unsubstantiated.

and was probably trained as a Sadducee rather than Pharisee.

Unknown, or unsubstantiated. Even my opinion below.

Yet I believe the Sadducees hired him as private police so to speak, headhunter to murder the sect leaders in the diaspora.

His father was probably of Greek origin, and was probably Roman citizen through either service in the army, or possibly his grandfather served

Again unknown.

Possibly a tent maker, which could have been a slave who work off and was given a type of citizenship.


We just don't know enough to make a statement with certainty.

. Jewishness is determined by the mother.

Again we don't know. Pauls Judaism has been questioned for thousands of years.


I think he was a Proselyte, but its just a guess.

No letters to Paul because he was executed in A.D. 64. A lot was lost in the mayhem, certainly his private letter collection

Possibly.

How do you deliver to a traveling man who is said to be always on the move.

[andrewcriddle]

He was a Pharisee (according to him) and a Roman citizen (how do you do that?).

Have you heard of Hellenistic Judaism? It would have been common.

I wouldn't be surprised if Caiaphas wasn't a Roman citizen and many of the Sadducees.

Remember, there were different kinds of Roman citizens.

At this period (1st century CE) there was only one grade of Roman citizen and it was relatively uncommon.

In the 2nd century CE there are 2 grades of Roman citizen. honestiores (top grade) and humilores (bottom grade) eventually almost every free person becomes a Roman citizen mostly humiliores.

Honestiores had many more rights than humilores.

Andrew Criddle

[Garon]

Why doesn't Paul say who took over from him to harass the churches?

What are you trying to say here?

I thought I was clear. Paul the harasser quit harassing and joined the churches. Why doesn't he say who took over harassing the churches (from the Jews) after he quit?

[outhouse]

He was a Pharisee (according to him) and a Roman citizen (how do you do that?).

Have you heard of Hellenistic Judaism? It would have been common.

I wouldn't be surprised if Caiaphas wasn't a Roman citizen and many of the Sadducees.

Remember, there were different kinds of Roman citizens.

At this period (1st century CE) there was only one grade of Roman citizen and it was relatively uncommon.

In the 2nd century CE there are 2 grades of Roman citizen. honestiores (top grade) and humilores (bottom grade) eventually almost every free person becomes a Roman citizen mostly humiliores.

Honestiores had many more rights than humilores.

Andrew Criddle

Im not sure about that.


What about Latin Right, or manumission, or freedmen.

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

Classes of citizenship

The legal classes varied over time, however the following classes of legal status existed at various times within the Roman state:

Cives Romani[edit]

The Cives Romani were full Roman citizens, who enjoyed full legal protection under Roman law. Cives Romani were sub-divided into two classes:

The non optimo iure who held the rights of ius commercii and ius connubii (rights of property and marriage), and

The optimo iure, who also held these rights as well as the additional rights of ius suffragiorum and ius honorum (the rights to vote and to hold office).

Latini[edit]

Further information: Latin League and Latin Right

The Latini were a class of citizens who held the Latin Rights (ius Latii), or the rights of ius commercii and ius migrationis, but not the ius connubii. The term Latini originally referred to the Latins, citizens of the Latin League who came under Roman control at the close of the Latin War, but eventually became a legal description rather than a nationalistic or ethnic one. Freedmen slaves, those of the Cives Romani convicted of crimes, or citizens settling Latin colonies could be given this status under the law.

Socii[edit]

Further information: Socii, Foederati, Social War (91–88 BC), and Lex Julia

Socii or Foederati were citizens of states which had treaty obligations with Rome, typically agreements under which certain legal rights of the state's citizens under Roman law were exchanged for agreed upon levels of military service, i.e. the Roman magistrates had the right to levy soldiers for the Roman legions from those states. However, Foederati states that had at one time been conquered by Rome were exempt from payment of tribute to Rome due to their treaty status.

Growing dissatisfaction with the rights afforded to the Socii, and with the growing manpower demands of the legions (due to the protracted Jugurthine War and the Cimbrian War) led eventually to the Social War of 91–88 BC in which the Italian allies revolted against Rome.

The passing of the Lex Julia (more specifically the Lex Iulia de Civitate Latinis Danda) in 90 BC granted the rights of the cives romani to all latini and socii states that had not participated in the Social War, or who were willing to cease hostilities immediately. This was eventually extended to all of the Italian Socii states following the conclusion of the war (with the exception of Gallia Cisalpina), effectively eliminating socii and latini as legal and citizenship definitions.

Provinciales[edit]

Provinciales were those persons who fell under Roman influence, or control, but who lacked even the rights of the Foederati, essentially having only the rights of the ius gentium.

Peregrini[edit]

A Peregrinus (plural Peregrini) was originally any person who was not a full Roman citizen, that is someone who was not a member of the Cives Romani. With the expansion of Roman law to include more gradations of legal status, this term became less used, but the term peregrini included those of the latini, socii, and provinciales, as well as those subjects of foreign states.