Paul was wealthy

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Jay,
You wrote:

From The shape of the Roman world, Version 1.0, April 2013, Walter Scheidel, Stanford University http://orbis.stanford.edu/assets/Scheidel_59.pdf

‘ORBIS: The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World’ simulates the time and price costs of travel by land, river and sea across the mature imperial transportation network, notionally approximating conditions around 200 CE.

But from the same URL, I read (bold italics mine):

This goal may seem especially difficult to reach when it comes to transportation expenses. Faute
de mieux, the model relies on the price ceilings ordained by Diocletian’s Prices Edict of 301 CE, which
alone yields concurrent information regarding road, river and sea travel. We may leave aside the question
whether this text documents realistic price levels: only price ratios between different modes of transport
are of relevance to our model. All that is required is that these price ceilings are not both massively and
inconsistently wrong. Comparative evidence suggests that this modest condition is indeed met by this set
of data. With the help of ORBIS, it is now possible to determine that the envisaged price ratio for moving
a given unit of cargo over a given unit of distance is 1 (sea) to 5 (downriver)/10 (upriver) to 52 (wagon).

It is clear the prices in the edict of 301 AD are used, but only to show the difference of cost for the various modes of transportation.

Jay, you also wrote:

From History Today http://www.historytoday.com/jasmine-pui ... cient-rome Bold italics are mine.

ORBIS is based on a simplified version of the giant network of cities, roads, rivers and sea lanes that framed movement across the Roman Empire. The Stanford team has relied on data such as historical tide and weather information, size and grade of road surfaces and an average walking distance of 30 kilometres per day. Hundreds of cities, ports and routes, vehicle speeds for ships, ox carts and horses, as well as the variable cost of transport have been logged. The data mainly focuses on the period around AD 200, when Septimius Severus expanded control of Africa and Roman power was at one of its peaks.

However, from the same URL, I read (bold italics mine):

The project also revealed just how little evidence we have about Roman transport speed, costs of sea vessels and speeds of river boats. Data was also limited on price fluctuations, the only reference coming from Emperor Diocletian’s edict of 301, which was intended to curb inflation.

Cordially, Bernard

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Bernard,

I have contacted Dr. Walter Scheidel and he has confirmed that the prices for trips on Orbis are based on the prices in the 301 Edict. The good news is that we just have to find the cost of a single First century trip and we will be able to plug them in to the information in Orbis and we will be able to figure out the cost of Paul's trips. For example, if we find that a trip from Athens to Thessaloniki cost 300 dinari in the First Century and it is listed as costing 400 dinari in Orbis, we will know that the costs of all trips were probably around 3/4 the total cost of the trips as listed in Orbis.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Jay,

The good news is that we just have to find the cost of a single First century trip and we will be able to plug them in to the information in Orbis and we will be able to figure out the cost of Paul's trips. For example, if we find that a trip from Athens to Thessaloniki cost 300 dinari in the First Century and it is listed as costing 400 dinari in Orbis, we will know that the costs of all trips were probably around 3/4 the total cost of the trips as listed in Orbis.

Indicators (already mentioned in my previous posts) point for the costs in dinarii for wheat to be around 50 +- 20% times less in 50-78 AD as compared with 301 AD.
So I am very much doubting the cost in dinarii for a trip in 50 AD would be only 3/4 of the same one in 301 AD.
Furthermore besides finding nourishment (based mostly on bread) along the route, a traveller by foot other major expense (if any) would be a shelter to spend the night.

I suppose you have evidence for a 1st century trip between Athens and Thessaloniki costing 300 dinarii. If you have, what is it?

Cordially, Bernard

[DCHindley]

Furthermore besides finding nourishment (based mostly on bread) along the route, a traveller by foot['s] other major expense (if any) would be a shelter to spend the night.

Well, there's that cold hard [but quite free] ground ... unless, of course, you happen to be a --- TENT MAKER [a la Acts]!

DCH

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Bernard,

I was simply giving an example of how travel costs might be found relative to data on Orbis, I was not saying that these were the travel costs in the First century.

from Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, Edited by Colin Adams and Ray Smith, Routledge, 2001

Travel may then have been expensive in comparison to normal living costs, and the major question, therefore, is who could afford to travel around the country? Soldiers and veterans and their families were well-to-do and could in most cases easily afford to travel, but it may well have been the case that journeys over long distances were beyond the means of the lower socio-economic classes. This would mean a severe limitation on their mobility. Not only was travel expensive, but it also meant time away from their land and livelihood.

In the Roman Empire, you had 1 or 2% of the population who were wealthy, 10% who were well-off, and close to 90% living at subsistence level.
The expense of travel was caused by the geography: mountains, rivers, zig-zag roads, and ships dependent on wind and good weather to get places and to keep from sinking.

I remember once visiting the birthplace of Aristotle - Stagira, in Thessaloniki. I had calculated the trip as only 60 miles and I thought it would take an hour. Two hours later, at the top of a mountain, the driver pointed to the town at last, seemingly ten miles away at the bottom of the mountain. Going 60 miles an hour down a narrow dirt zig-zagging road where I expected to die any minute, we finally reached the town 90 minutes later. Walking, it probably would have taken me a week to complete the trip, if I somehow managed to live through it.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay,

The good news is that we just have to find the cost of a single First century trip and we will be able to plug them in to the information in Orbis and we will be able to figure out the cost of Paul's trips. For example, if we find that a trip from Athens to Thessaloniki cost 300 dinari in the First Century and it is listed as costing 400 dinari in Orbis, we will know that the costs of all trips were probably around 3/4 the total cost of the trips as listed in Orbis.

Indicators (already mentioned in my previous posts) point for the costs in dinarii for wheat to be around 50 +- 20% times less in 50-78 AD as compared with 301 AD.
So I am very much doubting the cost in dinarii for a trip in 50 AD would be only 3/4 of the same one in 301 AD.
Furthermore besides finding nourishment (based mostly on bread) along the route, a traveller by foot other major expense (if any) would be a shelter to spend the night.

I suppose you have evidence for a 1st century trip between Athens and Thessaloniki costing 300 dinarii. If you have, what is it?

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Jay,
You wrote:

I was simply giving an example of how travel costs might be found relative to data on Orbis, I was not saying that these were the travel costs in the First century.

But you were suggesting (with no evidence) a trip from Athens to Thessaloniki may cost 300 dinarii in the first century. That was your good news.

Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, Edited by Colin Adams and Ray Smith, Routledge, 2001

Travel may then have been expensive in comparison to normal living costs, and the major question, therefore, is who could afford to travel around the country? Soldiers and veterans and their families were well-to-do and could in most cases easily afford to travel, but it may well have been the case that journeys over long distances were beyond the means of the lower socio-economic classes. This would mean a severe limitation on their mobility. Not only was travel expensive, but it also meant time away from their land and livelihood.

The author used words like "may" and with no evidence to back up his claims. But he is probably right on most points.

it may well have been the case that journeys over long distances were beyond the means of the lower socio-economic classes.

So what's new: It is the same today.
But I certainly agree most could not afford to travel, not so much because of the cost of travel by sea, or afoot, but because these trips would required many days and caused an unbearable loss of income, even for a relative short distance.

But how would that apply to Paul & helpers? Paul, most of the time was not working and likely was living off his converts. And he could easily raise the money for travelling from the same converts (or even pay on his own when working as a tent maker) according to the following:

Let's go back to the cost of travelling in 301 AD according to Orbis:
From Ephesus to Corinth by boat: 170 dinarii.
Average salary in these days for a blend unskilled and skilled workers (Reference: Diocletian's edict http://www.forumancientcoins.com/NumisW ... n%20Prices)
Farm laborer, with maintenance (daily) 25 [by "maintenance" I understand food being supplied by employer].
Carpenter, as above (daily) 50 ["as above" probably means "with maintenance"]
Wall painter, as above (daily) 75
Baker, as above (daily) 50
Sewer cleaner, working a full day, with maintenance (daily) 25

So the cost of going from Ephesus to Corinth in May of 301 AD (around 4 days trip) is only about 3.5 days of salary for a semi-skilled worker (about 50 dinarii). If ten of those would provide the traveller with 1/10 of their daily salary for 3.5 days, that would be enough to pay for the boat. (add about 2 days to the 3.5 days for food during the trip, that is about 50 dinarii). Total 220 dinarii = 4.5 daily salaries or ten workers providing 1/10 of their salary for 4.5 days (or one semi-skilled worker saving 1/10 of his daily salary for 45 days)

For going from Corinth to Rome in May (around 12 days trip), 300 dinarii (add 150 for food on the boat). Total = 9.5 daily salaries or ten workers providing the traveler 1/10 of their salary for 9.5 days (or one semi-skilled worker saving 1/10 of his daily salary for 95 days)

Note: one kilogram of wheat in 301 AD => 16 dinarii. Estimated cost of food on boat = 25 dinarii per day

And each Christian community had some well-to-do members who could contribute a lot more.

And I do not see any reason why that would not be about the same (ratio trip_cost/salary) in the first century.
Just divide all the costs by about 50 (already explained in a previous post of mine), replace "traveller" by Paul or one of his helpers, and "semi-skilled worker" by Paul.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Jay,
You wrote:

The expense of travel was caused by the geography: mountains, rivers, zig-zag roads, and ships dependent on wind and good weather to get places and to keep from sinking.

I remember once visiting the birthplace of Aristotle - Stagira, in Thessaloniki. I had calculated the trip as only 60 miles and I thought it would take an hour. Two hours later, at the top of a mountain, the driver pointed to the town at last, seemingly ten miles away at the bottom of the mountain. Going 60 miles an hour down a narrow dirt zig-zagging road where I expected to die any minute, we finally reached the town 90 minutes later. Walking, it probably would have taken me a week to complete the trip, if I somehow managed to live through it.

In the same area, travel by foot in antiquity from Thessaloniki to Philippi would take only 5 days (30 km per day) through highly populated plains and wide valleys, with little elevation gain anywhere.

Note: According to these URLs (http://books.google.ca/books?id=CjY5AAA ... re&f=false and http://www.forumancientcoins.com/NumisW ... n%20Prices)
the price of cheap wine in Pompeii (destroyed 79 AD) was 0.0625 dinarius (1 as) for a sextarius.
According to Diocletian's edict (301 AD), a sextarius of ordinary wine would cost 8 dinarii.

Also, from footnote 3 of the page posted under the first URL, prices per sextarius in a inn of Herculaneum (destroyed 79 AD) for different wines were 4.5, 4, 3 & 2 asses (16 asses for one dinarii).

Cordially, Bernard

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Bernard,

Please keep in mind that the edicts were for the most that you could charge or pay for something. If you charged or paid any more, you would be put to death. This would indicate that the wage maximum was set at a point that Diocletian felt would trigger inflation. This does not mean that these were the average wages for the time.
For example, consider the pay of baseball players. The two highest paid players made $29 and $25 million in 2013. One can easily imagine the league under a new dictatorial commissioner imposing a hard salary cap at $30 million to protect owner's profits from players. However, the average salary of baseball players is just $3.3 million. It would be incorrect to say that the average salary was $30 million because the cap was at $30 million.
The actual wages in Roman empire may have been only a fraction of the cap set by Diocletian's edict. Therefore the salaries listed in Diocletian's edict are probably excellent for telling the wage differential between different occupations, but cannot tell the actual salaries.
That is why if we find the cost of one First century trip, we can compare it to Diocletian's edict and from that figure out the comparative costs of other trips in relationship to that one destination. Orbis gives the relative costs of trips compared to each other under ideal circumstances not the actual costs of any one trip. Not understanding that Orbis should be used to compare trips, but not to find directly the actual price of trips was my first mistake.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[Bernard Muller]

Jay wrote,

The actual wages in Roman empire may have been only a fraction of the cap set by Diocletian's edict. Therefore the salaries listed in Diocletian's edict are probably excellent for telling the wage differential between different occupations, but cannot tell the actual salaries.

I do not agree with that. There is no point to set a maximum for commodities and salaries if, at the time, those commodities and salaries were way below these maximums.
And I do not think the comparison with baseball players is valid. Experienced bakers, wall painters, carpenters and sewer cleaners did not have stars commending 8 to 9 times the salaries of the corresponding ordinary workers. That's true today, and there are no evidence it was not the same in antiquity.
Furthermore, when there is a difference in quality in a product or workmanship, which was the case of wine (then & now) and scribes, Diocletian's edict took that in account and set a limit for each kind of wine and for two different scribe's abilities. But that's was not done for salaries of not skilled or semi-skilled workers. That tells me those salaries were about the same for each experienced worker in the same trade.

Orbis gives the relative costs of trips compared to each other under ideal circumstances not the actual costs of any one trip. Not understanding that Orbis should be used to compare trips, but not to find directly the actual price of trips was my first mistake.

I do not think the Orbis website provides cost of trips under ideal conditions, but rather average conditions. Anyway, even if you multiply their cost by 2, they would still be very affordable for Paul & helpers, as financed by Paul's converts.

Cordially, Bernard

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Bernard Muller,

In talking about wheat prices, Scheidel and Friesen note:

"The only thing we can be sure of is that actual prices varied quite significantly by region, being lowest in grain-exporting Egypt and highest in the capital."

from The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire Author(s): WALTER SCHEIDEL and STEVEN J. FRIESEN Source: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 99 (2009), pp. 61-91 Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40599740 . Accessed: 19/02/2014 17:30

If the cost of a basic staple like wheat was different in different parts of the empire, we can surmise that wages varied significantly in different part of the empire. Diocletian's Edict was a one time only, special emergency thing in the Roman empire. There were no other attempts as far as I know by any other Emperor to set wages on an empire wide basis. Local conditions which varied greatly from season to season and year to year would have determined the price of the labor market.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Jay wrote,

The actual wages in Roman empire may have been only a fraction of the cap set by Diocletian's edict. Therefore the salaries listed in Diocletian's edict are probably excellent for telling the wage differential between different occupations, but cannot tell the actual salaries.

I do not agree with that. There is no point to set a maximum for commodities and salaries if, at the time, those commodities and salaries were way below these maximums.
And I do not think the comparison with baseball players is valid. Experienced bakers, wall painters, carpenters and sewer cleaners did not have stars commending 8 to 9 times the salaries of the corresponding ordinary workers. That's true today, and there are no evidence it was not the same in antiquity.
Furthermore, when there is a difference in quality in a product or workmanship, which was the case of wine (then & now) and scribes, Diocletian's edict took that in account and set a limit for each kind of wine and for two different scribe's abilities. But that's was not done for salaries of not skilled or semi-skilled workers. That tells me those salaries were about the same for each experienced worker in the same trade.

Orbis gives the relative costs of trips compared to each other under ideal circumstances not the actual costs of any one trip. Not understanding that Orbis should be used to compare trips, but not to find directly the actual price of trips was my first mistake.

I do not think the Orbis website provides cost of trips under ideal conditions, but rather average conditions. Anyway, even if you multiply their cost by 2, they would still be very affordable for Paul & helpers, as financed by Paul's converts.

Cordially, Bernard