Paul was wealthy

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Arnoldo,

Thanks for this.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

1 Corinthians 9:14 is one of the few verse where Paul quotes Jesus and it's concerning $$$.

In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
1 Corinthians 9:7-14

In reference to Paul's travels, Jermome Murphy O'Conner IMHO has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that it was possible without an extravagant amount of $$$.


http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Critical-Lif ... in_title_0

[robert j]

If Paul could speak to us from the grave, he might borrow a line, further misquoting Mark Twain, "The rumors of my travels are greatly exaggerated."

If one appropriately ignores the fictional accounts in Acts, and derives Paul's travel itinerary from the only primary evidence available --- those authentic letters in which his travels are mentioned (1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians) --- an entirely different story emerges.

After leaving Judea/Syria, Paul made a journey into the heart of Galatia proper, and made one counter-clock-wise circuit, landing around the fringe of the Aegean Sea. That's it --- unless one accepts the truth of his story of a return trip to Jerusalem (further discussed below). Beyond Paul's own travels, his subordinates, his co-workers, delivered his letters. There is no reason to believe that delegations from his congregations traveled on Paul's nickel --- those from Corinth to Ephesus could have very well had other business in Ephesus.

But what about Rome? Beyond the fictional Acts, only the letter to the Romans provides evidence for an interest in Rome. But tellingly, the "who are in Rome" is missing from verses 1:7 and 1:15 in some important manuscripts, as well as in the commentary of Origen.

The travel plans in 15:14-33 could point to Rome, but both chapters 15 and 16 are missing from some important manuscripts. Tertullian (Adv Marc) quotes nothing from chapters 15 or 16, even though they contain rich anti-Marcionite material, but he cites 14:10 and says that it comes in the concluding section of the letter. An ending at 14:23 finds support from other sources and analyses as well. It seems likely the letter now called Romans started out as an earlier letter (or treatise) that ended at 14:23, likely followed with an appropriate closing, and lacked any association with Rome. A discussion of these manuscript variants and stylometric problems can be found in many commentaries on Romans for those interested.

And how about Paul's second trip to Jerusalem found in Galatians 2:1-10? I admit, this is the most speculative of my claims about Paul's travels here --- and a claim that finds scant support (if even that) from the literature. None-the-less, I don't believe Paul made that trip, but it's clear to me why he would make up the story. The letter to the Galatians is primarily Paul's defense against some who were promoting certain Jewish practices, especially circumcision, for his congregation. He makes his arguments in chapter 3 and beyond, but he uses chapter 2 to claim support of others for his position. And what better source of approval for his position could Paul use? Who could question the authority of the earliest believers in the Christ spirit, and the figures of sect leadership --- in Jerusalem, the touchstone of Jewish authority?

Notice how Paul prefaces his story of the trip by claiming he was unknown to the Judean assemblies of the Christ (1:22) --- should any of his congregation perchance have opportunity to ask about him. And the events in this second Jerusalem visit were all in private (2:2) and in secret (2:4). Notice that the only named witnesses to the events were Paul's own crew, and the 3 pillars. I think Paul could have been reasonably confident that his Galatian congregation would not have the opportunity to ask any of these sect founders in far off Jerusalem. Why not give it a shot? The congregation was slipping away. Desperate times called for desperate measures.

Even if one takes Paul at his word on this trip to Jerusalem, the expense would have been entirely reasonable in the context of a multi-year career.

Many investigators see more than one visit by Paul to the congregation at Corinth. I believe Paul visited the group only one time, on his initial evangelization. The passage that seems to create the most confusion is 2 Corinthians 13:1-2. Some of the difficulty, in too many bibles, is due to poor translation.

Paul's statement (my translation and emphasis) --- "This third time I AM coming to you" (2 Cor 13:1) --- means that this is the third time that Paul was PLANNING to make another visit. This may seem like special pleading, but a careful analyses of the correspondence supports this interpretation, as does Trobisch (1994, p. 66-67).

Dr. David Trobisch, formerly of the University of Heidelberg, has studied the letters of Paul extensively. I don't agree with all of Trobisch's conclusions in his excellent book, but I do here. Trobisch, in "Paul's Letter Collection --- Tracing the Origins", 1994, writes on page 67 ----

"… his expression in 2 Cor 13:2 'as if I were with you a second time although I am absent now' is to be understood as a definite statement that he has been to Corinth only once."

The received letter 2 Corinthians is a composite of more than one letter, with portions assembled out of chronological sequence. The last we hear from Paul is after his return to Macedonia, when he writes to Corinth to defend his authority in the face of competition from missionaries the congregation liked better (the "super apostles"). We are left with an embattled and downtrodden Paul --- some of his Galatians were turning to the Jewish Mosaic laws, he had been thrown in prison in Ephesus, his work in Troas came to naught, and now, the Corinthians had been visited by missionaries they liked better than Paul. I'm not surprised Paul retreated back to Macedonia, near his most supportive congregation --- the Philippians.

robert j.

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Jay,

Diocletian was elected by the army, not the large landowners. He had to worry about the troops not being able to afford basic necessities of life. He would not care about the profits of large landowners. It was most important for him to control prices, so the soldiers could afford to eat and travel. Lowering the cost of food and travel would have been his priority.

Nowhere in Diocletian's preamble to his edict, he mentioned lowering the price of food and travel (an absurd proposition, economically disastrous). And if he ever did, he would have brought a huge economic turmoil in the empire, not to mention the wrath of wealthy landowners and shipowners. Army or no army, he would have got in huge trouble.
There is no evidence about Diocletian lowering the prices of anything. You are imagining things.
I quote you: "One has to use imagination to reconstruct history. As long as the imagination is strictly tied to facts and logical and reasonable deductions from facts, it is useful."
Imagination is to be avoided in order to reconstruct history. Furthermore, in the case above, about lowering prices, there are no facts to support your logic & deductions.

The Pauline epistles and "Acts" are the only evidence of Jews or Christians having existed at all in Corinth. Strangely, the Christian community could afford to send money and emmisaries to Jerusalem, but not to build a church or temple. That the Christian community in Corinth is a literary fiction would be the simplest explanation for this seemingly odd choice.

I have two arguments about Christians not building their places of worship:
a) They were at times persecuted (because they worship an individual who died as a criminal (crucifixion) and Gentile Christianity got to be considered as a new superstition, which was not allowed to exist.
b) Early Christians believed the Kingdom of God would come soon (relative to their times) and consequently were not making the effort of building places of worship. That would be saying: we do not believe in that anymore. Even if that was one of the main reason Christians kept their faith and attracting new converts (also to avoid accompanying God's wrath if you were on the wrong side!).

Boats did not generally travel at night. Boats did not generally provide seats, it was standing room only. Think about standing for 16 hours and then sleeping standing up. We should include the cost of shelter at night for boat trips.

Boats could travel at night in open sea.
Travelers could seat and lay down on the deck of ships, why not? Why are you suggesting the ships were so crowded people would have to stay upright. If that was the case, that would mean traveling by ship was popular and cheap, and not reserved to only the few wealthies. And if you insist those passengers on boat were wealthies, do you think they would travel that way (upright)? You got yourself in some contradictions here.

Being an indentured servant may have been a terrific job training opportunity and career move, but nevertheless it was work. If one works for four years to pay off a long trip, the cost of the trip is much greater than if one works for two weeks.

These indentured servants were provided with food, lodging, clothes and training for years. So the master was paying not only for the trip, but also the living expenses of these lads. So it is wrong to say these servants worked for years to pay off only their Atlantic crossing. They worked for years to pay for the crossing AND also the living expenses.

Slaves would be useful to any institution in those days to do the drudge work. Just as they were an underclass without rights and part of Roman society, they may have been an underclass without rights in the early Christian community. Paul telling slaves that they should not seek their freedom would have been a slap in the face of every slave who was a Christian, as freedom was the desire and life's goal of almost all slaves.

Paul's was careful not to be a trouble maker on the slave issue and he accepted the status quo.
But that the Christian communities had their own slaves to served them is unevidenced and again from your imagination.

Cordially, Bernard

[steve43]

Robert wrote

"If one appropriately ignores the fictional accounts in Acts..."

Ouch!

If a frog had wings.....

[Bernard Muller]

But tellingly, the "who are in Rome" is missing from verses 1:7 and 1:15 in some important manuscripts

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_va ... _Testament, "Rome" is omitted for a total of only 3 times:

Romans 1:7
ἐν Ῥώμῃ (in Rome) — א A B C D K P Ψ 33 81 88 104 181 330 436 451 614 629 630 1241 1739txt 1877 1881 1962 1984 1985 2127 2492 2495 Byz Lect it vg syr cop arm Origen Ambst. Augustine
ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ (in love of God) — Codex Boernerianus
omitted by 1739mg 1908 Origen
...
Romans 1:15
ἐν Ῥώμῃ — omitted by Ga

Cordially, Bernard

[arnoldo]

. . .Even if one takes Paul at his word on this trip to Jerusalem, the expense would have been entirely reasonable in the context of a multi-year career. . .

Time is an important variable, aside from money, to consider if Paul's travels were possible. Perhaps Paul's travels could be compared to the travels indicated in The Itinerarium Burdigalense?

The Itinerarium Burdigalense

The first document we've tackled entirely in Recogito is the Itinerarium Burdigalense: the Itinerarium Burdigalense (or Bordeaux Itinerary) is a travel document that records a Pilgrim route between the cities of Bordeaux and Jerusalem. It is considered the oldest Christian pilgrimage document, dated in 333 AD - which is just 20 years after the Edict of Milan from 313, when the Emperor Constantine granted the religious liberty to Christians (and other religions). Formally, this document is very similar in some aspects to the Itinerarium Provinciarum Antonini Augusti: both of them are compiled as a list of places with the distances between them. Additionally, the Itinerarium Burdigalense also marked all the places as mutatio, mansio or civitas (change, halt or city) in a similar way as the Peutinger Table. The format of the document changes when the travel arrives to Judea, where it offers detailed descriptions of important places to Christian Pilgrims. So we can consider it an itinerarium in the tradition of Greek and Roman writing, except for its Christian emphasis. (We've compiled a detailed bibliography for the Itinerarium Burdigalense here. The text of an English translation can be found, for example, on this Website.)
http://pelagios-project.blogspot.com/20 ... -back.html

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Bernard,

Perhaps we should deal with one issue at a time here. Let us start with this idea of Diocletian lowering prices. You say that "there is no evidence about Diocletian lowering the prices of anything. You are imagining things."
Here is my evidence from the Preamble of Diocletian's Edict:

"10. Who therefore can be ignorant that an audacity that plots against the good of society is presenting itself with a spirit of profiteering, wherever the general welfare requires our armies to be directed, not only in villages and towns, but along every highway? That it forces up the prices of commodities not four-old or eightfold, but to such a degree that human language cannot find words to set a proper evaluation upon their action? Finally, that sometimes by the outlay upon a single article the soldier is robbed both of his bounty and of his pay, and that the entire contributions of the whole world for maintaining the armies accrue to the detestable gains of plunderers, so that our soldiers seem to yield the entire fruit of their military career, and the labors of their entire term of service, to these profiteers in everything, in order that the pillagers of the commonwealth may from day to day carry off all that they resolve to have?

"11. Being justly and duly moved by all these considerations above included, since already humanity itself seemed to be praying for release, we resolved, not that the prices of commodities should be fixed — for it is not thought just that this be done, since sometimes very many provinces exult in the good fortune of the low prices which they desire, and as it were in a certain privileged state of abundance- — but that a maximum befixed; in order that, when any stress of high prices made its appearance — ^which omen we prayed the gods might avert — avarice, which could not be checked on the so-to-speak endlessly extending plains, might be confined by the bounds of our statute and the limits set in the law promulgated to control them.

"12. It is our pleasure, therefore, that those prices, which the concise items of the following list indicate, be held in attention throughout our whole domain, in such a way that all men understand that freedom to exceed them is removed; while at the same time, in those places where goods manifestly abound, the happy condition of cheap prices shall not thereby be hampered — and ample provision is made for cheapness, if avarice is limited and curbed.

From http://archive.org/stream/jstor-3314009 ... 9_djvu.txt Kent, Roland, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 69.
It seems to me that when he compains merchants have raised prices, "not four-old or eightfold, but to such a degree that human language cannot find words to set a proper evaluation upon their action? Finally, that sometimes by the outlay upon a single article the soldier is robbed both of his bounty and of his pay, and that the entire contributions of the whole world for maintaining the armies accrue to the detestable gains of plunderers," it is incredible to believe he is not lowering prices in his edict. This is my evidence. Please offer yours.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay,

Diocletian was elected by the army, not the large landowners. He had to worry about the troops not being able to afford basic necessities of life. He would not care about the profits of large landowners. It was most important for him to control prices, so the soldiers could afford to eat and travel. Lowering the cost of food and travel would have been his priority.

Nowhere in Diocletian's preamble to his edict, he mentioned lowering the price of food and travel (an absurd proposition, economically disastrous). And if he ever did, he would have brought a huge economic turmoil in the empire, not to mention the wrath of wealthy landowners and shipowners. Army or no army, he would have got in huge trouble.
There is no evidence about Diocletian lowering the prices of anything. You are imagining things.
I quote you: "One has to use imagination to reconstruct history. As long as the imagination is strictly tied to facts and logical and reasonable deductions from facts, it is useful."
Imagination is to be avoided in order to reconstruct history. Furthermore, in the case above, about lowering prices, there are no facts to support your logic & deductions.

The Pauline epistles and "Acts" are the only evidence of Jews or Christians having existed at all in Corinth. Strangely, the Christian community could afford to send money and emmisaries to Jerusalem, but not to build a church or temple. That the Christian community in Corinth is a literary fiction would be the simplest explanation for this seemingly odd choice.

I have two arguments about Christians not building their places of worship:
a) They were at times persecuted (because they worship an individual who died as a criminal (crucifixion) and Gentile Christianity got to be considered as a new superstition, which was not allowed to exist.
b) Early Christians believed the Kingdom of God would come soon (relative to their times) and consequently were not making the effort of building places of worship. That would be saying: we do not believe in that anymore. Even if that was one of the main reason Christians kept their faith and attracting new converts (also to avoid accompanying God's wrath if you were on the wrong side!).

Boats did not generally travel at night. Boats did not generally provide seats, it was standing room only. Think about standing for 16 hours and then sleeping standing up. We should include the cost of shelter at night for boat trips.

Boats could travel at night in open sea.
Travelers could seat and lay down on the deck of ships, why not? Why are you suggesting the ships were so crowded people would have to stay upright. If that was the case, that would mean traveling by ship was popular and cheap, and not reserved to only the few wealthies. And if you insist those passengers on boat were wealthies, do you think they would travel that way (upright)? You got yourself in some contradictions here.

Being an indentured servant may have been a terrific job training opportunity and career move, but nevertheless it was work. If one works for four years to pay off a long trip, the cost of the trip is much greater than if one works for two weeks.

These indentured servants were provided with food, lodging, clothes and training for years. So the master was paying not only for the trip, but also the living expenses of these lads. So it is wrong to say these servants worked for years to pay off only their Atlantic crossing. They worked for years to pay for the crossing AND also the living expenses.

Slaves would be useful to any institution in those days to do the drudge work. Just as they were an underclass without rights and part of Roman society, they may have been an underclass without rights in the early Christian community. Paul telling slaves that they should not seek their freedom would have been a slap in the face of every slave who was a Christian, as freedom was the desire and life's goal of almost all slaves.

Paul's was careful not to be a trouble maker on the slave issue and he accepted the status quo.
But that the Christian communities had their own slaves to served them is unevidenced and again from your imagination.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Jay,

"10. Who therefore can be ignorant that an audacity that plots against the good of society is presenting itself with a spirit of profiteering, wherever the general welfare requires our armies to be directed, not only in villages and towns, but along every highway? That it forces up the prices of commodities not four-old or eightfold, but to such a degree that human language cannot find words to set a proper evaluation upon their action? Finally, that sometimes by the outlay upon a single article the soldier is robbed both of his bounty and of his pay, and that the entire contributions of the whole world for maintaining the armies accrue to the detestable gains of plunderers, so that our soldiers seem to yield the entire fruit of their military career, and the labors of their entire term of service, to these profiteers in everything, in order that the pillagers of the commonwealth may from day to day carry off all that they resolve to have?"

(bolded italics mine)
Here, Diocletian was lamenting that the soldiers of his army were the victims of profiteers who supplied them with goods, at an exuberant cost, which had nothing to do with market condition (offer and demand). That's one reason for Diocletian's edict. He was not lowering the normal prices, he was just trying to prevent outright greediness victimizing the soldiers.

In chapter 11, Diocletian said "a maximum be fixed; in order that, when any stress of high prices made its appearance — ^which omen we prayed the gods might avert — avarice, which could not be checked on the so-to-speak endlessly extending plains, might be confined by the bounds of our statute and the limits set in the law promulgated to control them." (bolded italics mine)
Once again, Diocletian was not saying he was lowering the normal prices, but, when the trend was for an increase (due to market condition, like poor crops), limit that increase to a preset maximum, and prevent any surcharge due to the avarice of profiteers.

"12. It is our pleasure, therefore, that those prices, which the concise items of the following list indicate, be held in attention throughout our whole domain, in such a way that all men understand that freedom to exceed them is removed; while at the same time, in those places where goods manifestly abound, the happy condition of cheap prices shall not thereby be hampered — and ample provision is made for cheapness, if avarice is limited and curbed."

(bolded italics mine)
Diocletian is suggesting that higher price was caused when a commodity was not abundant. He also said that "if avarice is limited and curbed", the cheapness should remain. No lowering of prices here either.

And there is no hint in your quotes that Diocletian was trying to lower the cost of transportation.

Cordially, Bernard

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi All,

For those working with Orbis, this information may be helpful:

"The composers of the Edict seem to have worked with a standard of 50 denarii a day for skilled work, and 25 denarii a day for unskilled work."
from The value of labour: Diocletian’s Prices Edict by M.J. Groen-Vallinga and L.E. Tacoma in K. Verboven, A. Zuiderhoek, P. Van Nuffelen (eds)., Work, labor and professions in the Roman WorldSee http://www.academia.edu/3726129/_with_d ... taken=true

Groen-Valinga and Verboven also note, "the great majority of the labour force was holding jobs of 25 denarii or less."

We can perhaps compare this with the unskilled worker in the United States who makes about $50 per day ($7.25 Federal minimum wage).
From this, we might be tempted to say that a dinari equals two dollars. However what a dinari actually could buy in 301 CE would differ quite a bit from what a dollar buys today. For example one egg apparently cost a dinari, while for 2 dollars, we can get a dozen eggs today. A cheap shirt cost about 500 dinari. At the rate of 1 dinari equals $2, that would be a cost of $1,000. Whereas, actually, for $1,000, a worker today can buy about 100 cheap shirts. (from prices mentioned in the Roen-Valinga and Verboven article).

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[steve43]

Here is an excerpt from Hagan's "Fires of Rome" regarding the sesterce (four denarii) that might be enlightening.

"How is the value of the Roman sesterce determined in modern terms? One benchmark with which to roughly assign value to the sesterce is that in the first half of the first century A.D., the pay for Roman soldiers was nine hundred sesterces per annum, with
deductions for food. Tacitus is also helpful in this regard when he wrote about the Rome fires of A.D. 64.

'Supplies of food were brought up from Ostia and the neighbouring towns, and the price of corn was reduced to three sesterces a peck (Annuls 15:39)'

With this solid number, some observations can be made. First, it is assumed that three sesterces a peck was a bargain price for corn. In normal times, the price was probably twice that. With four pecks making up a bushel, the usual price of corn in Rome would have been twenty-four sesterces a bushel. The Roman soldier was paid under three sesterces per day. Even if twelve sesterces per bushel was the normal price of corn, it would take four days of brute labor to buy a single bushel of corn. This gives us an idea of the value of a first century A.D. sesterce, but also suggests that food in modern times is extraordinarily cheap when compared to ancient times!"