Freethought & Rationalism Archive

d-ray · 05-02-2008, 07:15 AM

Dear Friends--
I have a question, which for all my reading I have never found an answer to--mainly because I've never even seen the question addressed. Maybe someone has some good information and can clear this up for me.
It concerns Paul's trip to Damascus--just before he had his life-changing vision. Now according to Paul he was heading for Damascus to find Christians and arrest them at the behest of the high priest. This is the point I have doubts about: what possible authority would the high priest of Jerusalem have had to arrest people in Damascus?
If I understand the situation at the time, the high priest's authority was limited to Jerusalem. He would have had the power to arrest no one outside of the city, certainly not in Syria, which was a different province altogether. I can't imagine the Roman proconsul governing Syria allowing an unknown private citizen to come on his patch and start arresting people on the orders of the high priest--and especially not for something that wasn't even a crime at the time.
Was Paul exaggerating his role, just to make things more dramatic? Perhaps he was simply on a "fact-finding mission" for the high priest.
But perhaps I'm mistaken about this. If anyone knows anything about it, I'd be grateful for the info. Cheers! d-ray

dog-on · 05-02-2008, 07:19 AM

I believe that you are actually referring to Acts and not to what Paul, himself, has written.

spin · 05-02-2008, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray

Dear Friends--
I have a question, which for all my reading I have never found an answer to--mainly because I've never even seen the question addressed. Maybe someone has some good information and can clear this up for me.
It concerns Paul's trip to Damascus--just before he had his life-changing vision. Now according to Paul he was heading for Damascus to find Christians and arrest them at the behest of the high priest. This is the point I have doubts about: what possible authority would the high priest of Jerusalem have had to arrest people in Damascus?
If I understand the situation at the time, the high priest's authority was limited to Jerusalem. He would have had the power to arrest no one outside of the city, certainly not in Syria, which was a different province altogether. I can't imagine the Roman proconsul governing Syria allowing an unknown private citizen to come on his patch and start arresting people on the orders of the high priest--and especially not for something that wasn't even a crime at the time.
Was Paul exaggerating his role, just to make things more dramatic? Perhaps he was simply on a "fact-finding mission" for the high priest.
But perhaps I'm mistaken about this. If anyone knows anything about it, I'd be grateful for the info. Cheers! d-ray

Hi and welcome to the forum.

dog-on has pointed out that the story you have in mind is from Acts, although there is something Paul himself wrote which Acts here may be related to, Gal 1:13. The Acts version and the high priest's sway extending to Damascus seems a little far umm fetched. We tend to trust Paul's own statements against Acts, though still with a healthy dose of skepticism...

spin

apatura_iris · 05-02-2008, 08:08 AM

I have many doubts about Paul in general, but assuming that this story is even vaguely based on fact: the Jewish rabbinate/ Sanhedrin did have a sort of underground power despite the fact that they were under occupation. Sort of like "street justice." I imagine that is the sort of "arrest" he planned to make. Handing a convict over to an occupying gentile government was a formal method of execution codified in the Talmud (as happened to Jesus). So they found ways to circumvent their removed authority.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-02-2008, 08:47 AM

Judea (and therefore Jerusalem) actually was part of the Syrian province -- not that it makes Luke's Damascus story any more plausible.

aa5874 · 05-02-2008, 09:11 AM

Only the Acts of the Apostles have information about "Saul/Paul". The "Pauls" of the epistles make no mention of any conversion where they were blinded by any bright light on the road to Damacus.

According to Acts this so-called conversion happened outside Damascus, but this location, near to Damascus, has not been released by either the author of Acts or the authors of the "Pauline epistles". It is not known if "Saul/Paul" approached Damascus from the North, East, West, or South.

Acts 9.3

Quote:

And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven.

"Near to Damascus" is actually an unknown location.

Now in the "Pauline epistles", it would appear that when "Paul" was in Damascus, it was "Paul" who was to be killed or arrested.

2 Corinthians 11.32-33

Quote:

In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garisson, desirous to apprehend me.

And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.

"Paul" was being hunted down in Damascus.

The conversion of "Paul" appear to be just propaganda. And the canonisation of the Acts of the Apostles is an indication that the name "Paul" was fabricated.

apatura_iris · 05-02-2008, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatura_iris

Handing a convict over to an occupying gentile government was a formal method of execution codified in the Talmud (as happened to Jesus). So they found ways to circumvent their removed authority.

BTW here is the reference for this:

Quote:

although the Sanhedrin was abolished, the four modes of execution were not abolished? They were not abolished, [you say,] but surely they were! — But the law of the four modes of execution was not abolished: He who is worthy of stoning either falls from the roof, or is trampled to death by a wild beast; he who merits burning either falls into the fire or is bitten by a serpent; he who is worthy of decapitation is either delivered to the [gentile] Government or brigands attack him; he who is worthy of strangulation is either drowned in a river or dies of suffocation? (Sanhedrin 37b)

There are two other references in the Talmud, one is Sotah 8b and another in Sanhedrin 47b.

spamandham · 05-02-2008, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray

This is the point I have doubts about: what possible authority would the high priest of Jerusalem have had to arrest people in Damascus?

Well, as has already been pointed out, the real answer is that you should probably question the veracity of the story altogether. Bluntly, Acts is a work of fiction, and the letters attributed to Paul are not much better at best. It's misleading to take anything in the NT at face value.

Welcome to the forums BTW!

Roger Pearse · 05-03-2008, 01:06 AM

I think the original poster is imagining that the Roman empire worked like modern America. It didn't. Authority could come from quite a number of sources.

Remember that the Jewish authorities even raised a tax across the empire from their people. They were the representatives of a legal religion, and had legal status accordingly.

More to the point, the local authorities wanted quiet, and appeals to them by influential people to suppress 'nuisances' would certainly be listened to.

The Jewish leaders also had the ear of the emperor, rather as today they make use of US power to extract concessions in eastern europe (endless websites about this activity online, pro and con), despite having no legal power to do so. They were in a position to threaten governors, and used it.

Of course sometimes the boot could be on the other foot!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

d-ray · 05-09-2008, 07:35 AM

Right, folks, thanks for your thoughts, which I have been considering. The idea that Paul would have been going to Damascus to denounce "troublemakers" and hand them over to the authorities sounds plausible to me--though I don't pretend to any expertise in these matters. It's odd how it's always hard to know what to think when you're reading the Bible.

05-02-2008, 07:15 AM	#1
d-ray Regular Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ireland Posts: 288	What was Paul up to? Dear Friends-- I have a question, which for all my reading I have never found an answer to--mainly because I've never even seen the question addressed. Maybe someone has some good information and can clear this up for me. It concerns Paul's trip to Damascus--just before he had his life-changing vision. Now according to Paul he was heading for Damascus to find Christians and arrest them at the behest of the high priest. This is the point I have doubts about: what possible authority would the high priest of Jerusalem have had to arrest people in Damascus? If I understand the situation at the time, the high priest's authority was limited to Jerusalem. He would have had the power to arrest no one outside of the city, certainly not in Syria, which was a different province altogether. I can't imagine the Roman proconsul governing Syria allowing an unknown private citizen to come on his patch and start arresting people on the orders of the high priest--and especially not for something that wasn't even a crime at the time. Was Paul exaggerating his role, just to make things more dramatic? Perhaps he was simply on a "fact-finding mission" for the high priest. But perhaps I'm mistaken about this. If anyone knows anything about it, I'd be grateful for the info. Cheers! d-ray

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-02-2008, 07:19 AM	#2
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	I believe that you are actually referring to Acts and not to what Paul, himself, has written.

05-02-2008, 08:08 AM	#4
apatura_iris Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Staten Island Posts: 1,906	I have many doubts about Paul in general, but assuming that this story is even vaguely based on fact: the Jewish rabbinate/ Sanhedrin did have a sort of underground power despite the fact that they were under occupation. Sort of like "street justice." I imagine that is the sort of "arrest" he planned to make. Handing a convict over to an occupying gentile government was a formal method of execution codified in the Talmud (as happened to Jesus). So they found ways to circumvent their removed authority.

05-02-2008, 08:47 AM	#5
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Judea (and therefore Jerusalem) actually was part of the Syrian province -- not that it makes Luke's Damascus story any more plausible.

05-03-2008, 01:06 AM	#9
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	I think the original poster is imagining that the Roman empire worked like modern America. It didn't. Authority could come from quite a number of sources. Remember that the Jewish authorities even raised a tax across the empire from their people. They were the representatives of a legal religion, and had legal status accordingly. More to the point, the local authorities wanted quiet, and appeals to them by influential people to suppress 'nuisances' would certainly be listened to. The Jewish leaders also had the ear of the emperor, rather as today they make use of US power to extract concessions in eastern europe (endless websites about this activity online, pro and con), despite having no legal power to do so. They were in a position to threaten governors, and used it. Of course sometimes the boot could be on the other foot! All the best, Roger Pearse

05-09-2008, 07:35 AM	#10
d-ray Regular Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ireland Posts: 288	Right, folks, thanks for your thoughts, which I have been considering. The idea that Paul would have been going to Damascus to denounce "troublemakers" and hand them over to the authorities sounds plausible to me--though I don't pretend to any expertise in these matters. It's odd how it's always hard to know what to think when you're reading the Bible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.