Toto

Dutch archaeologist says the obvious

squiz

Who is to say that he was not rich? After all, he was a Jewish Roman citizen from Tarsus. I wonder how common that was. A tent maker? I read somewhere that it was probably quite a lucrative business.

arnoldo

For the sake of argument even if Eusebius invented the entire story about Paul being executed in Rome it's still an important writings since it would indicate how this myth began, don't you agree?
Would you be interested in purchasing the below inscription?

Toto

No I would not agree. Eusebius is a fourth century source. We don't have a clue how the myth began, and neither did he (unless, of course, he invented it, but I don't claim that.)

It's interesting art work, but the same problem. We know that there was a tradition / rumor / urban legend / story or whatever you want to call it that Paul was beheaded in Rome in the mid first century. We don't know if it contains a shred of history or not.

aileron

Well, it's more than just the expense. I'd like to do more research (maybe someone can suggest a source), but the little I've started to read indicates that purple was worn only by senators and equestrians (lower nobles). Paul would have been neither. What I don't know is if wearing purple by others would have been like a civilian dressing up in a military or police uniform today, but purple seems to have been reserved for only certain classes of people.

Back Again

Well the assumption would be that the finery was added when the body was relocated to the sarcophagus in the 4th century.

I think it's obvious that no real forensic science is going to be done transparently for the satisfaction of the archaeological community. Was there an announcement that carbon dating was going to be done on bone fragments before the results came back? I assume not.

aileron

OK that makes sense, thanks. I didn't know the remains of whoever it was were moved.

mountainman

There are not multiple sources to be selected.
Our selection is unavoidably singular and monotone.
The first and only story of pre-Constantinian "State Christianity"
was authored sometime between the years of 312 and 338 CE.

It was written by Hans Eusebius Pamphilus Anderson of the Caesars.
You either accept what Consantine sponsored Eusebius to tell us
or you place the entire epoch of "Early Christianity" into some form
of transcendental ancient history, the like of which might be today
sketched by J.R.R. Tolkien. Arnaldo Momigliano, the Jewish-Italian
British-American ancient historian of last century used this word
TRANSCENDENTAL alot when discussing "early christian history".

We of course do have other sources about Paul which are independent
of Eusebius' history, but these accounts are so outrageously popular
fiction, filled with impossibly romantic miracles and events. An example
is of course "The Acts of Paul".

The author of the Acts of Paul was at one time suspected of being
an historical person with the name of "Leucius Charinus". This name
appears suddenly in the late fourth century, associated with the
Arian heretics.

The author of this new testament "apocryphal act" actually describes
Paul in the following manner ....

A man small in size, with a bald head and crooked legs; in good health; with eyebrows that met and a rather prominent nose; full of grace, for sometimes he looked like a man and sometimes he looked like an angel.

Perhaps an examination of the remnants of the eyebrows can be
undertaken by the Pope's official investigation cohort.

Here are some comments about The Acts of Paul:

The Acts of Paul

Glenn Davis:
The Acts of Paul (Asia Minor, 185-195 CE) is a romance that makes arbitrary use of the canonical Acts and the Pauline Epistles. Many manuscripts have survived, there is an English translation in [Schneemelcher] v. 2 pp. 237-265, but there is not yet a critical edition. The canon list in the 6th century codex Claromontanus includes it with an indication that it contains 3560 lines, somewhat longer than the canonical Acts with 2600 lines. The author, so Tertullian tells us, was a cleric who lived in the Roman province of Asia in the western part of Asia Minor, and who composed the book about 170 CE with the avowed intent of doing honor to the Apostle Paul. Although well-intentioned, the author was brought up for trial by his peers and, being convicted of falsifying the facts, was dismissed from his office. But his book, though condemned by ecclesiastical leaders, achieved considerable popularity among the laity. Certain episodes in the Acts of Paul, such as the 'Journeys of Paul and Thecla', exist in a number of Greek manuscripts and in half a dozen ancient versions. Thecla was a noble-born virgin from Iconium and an enthusiastic follower of the Apostle; she preached like a missionary and administered baptism. It was the administration of baptism by a woman that scandalized Tertullian and led him to condemn the entire book. In this section we find a description of the physical appearance of Paul:

A man small in size, with a bald head and crooked legs; in good health; with eyebrows that met and a rather prominent nose; full of grace, for sometimes he looked like a man and sometimes he looked like an angel.

Another episode concerns the Apostle and the baptized lion. Although previously known from allusions to it in patristic writers, it was not until 1936 that the complete text was made available from a recently discovered Greek papyrus. Probably the imaginative writer had read Paul's rhetorical question: 'What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with the wild beasts at Ephesus?' (I Cor. 15:32). Wishing to supply details to supplement this allusion, the author supplies a thrilling account of the intrepid apostle's experience at Ephesus. Interest is added when the reader learns that some time earlier in the wilds of the countryside Paul had preached to that very lion and, on its profession of faith, had baptized it. It is not surprising that the outcome of the confrontation in the amphitheater was the miraculous release of the apostle.


Geoff Trowbridge:
The Acts Of Paul (c. 150-200 C.E.) were by far the most popular of the apocryphal acts, spawning a great deal of Christian art and secondary literature, as well as a cult which venerated Thecla, the young girl who accompanies Paul on his missionary journeys. The Acts were considered orthodox by Hippolytus, as well as other writers as late as the mid-fourth century, but were eventually rejected by the church when heretical groups like the Manichaeans began to adopt them. Still, some late Greek texts of the Epistles to Timothy contain alternate passages that appear to be derived from the Acts. The Acts of Paul were often coupled with the Third Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, which was regarded as authentically Pauline by the Syrian and Armenian churches. Originally a separate work, it was likely written around the time of the pastoral epistles and conjoined with the later Acts only after it had been excluded from most Pauline collections. The letter was written primarily to combat Gnostic and Marcionite doctrine which utilized other Pauline works for anti-semitic means. This epistle has survived in several extant manuscripts, as have the stories of Thecla and the account of Paul's beheading in Rome; the remainder of the Acts exist only in fragmentary Greek texts from the third century, and Coptic texts from the fifth. The author, who is unknown, does not appear to show any dependence upon the canonical Acts, instead utilizing other oral traditions of Paul's preaching and missionary work. He likely wrote in Asia Minor near the end of the second century.

Philip Sellew (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 202)
writes: A 2nd-century Christian writing recounting the missionary career and death of the apostle Paul and classed among the NT Apocrypha. In this work Paul is pictured as traveling from city to city, converting gentiles and proclaiming the need for a life of sexual abstinence and other encratite practices. Though ancient evidence suggests that the Acts of Paul was a relatively lengthy work (3600 lines according to the Stichometry of Nicephorus), only about two-thirds of that amount still survives. Individual sections were transmitted separately by the medieval manuscript tradition (Lipsius 1891), most importantly by the Acts of Paul and Thekla and the Martyrdom of Paul, both extant in the original Greek and several ancient translations. Manuscript discoveries in the last century have added considerable additional material. The most important of these include a Greek papyrus of the late 3d century, now at Hamburg (10 pages), a Coptic papyrus of the 4th or 5th century, now at Heidelberg (about 80 pages), and a Greek papyrus of correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians (3 Corinthians = Testuz 1959), now at Geneva. These finds have confirmed that the Thekla cycle and story of Paul's martyrdom were originally part of the larger Acts of Paul (details in Bovon 1981 or NTApocr.).

So here we see that the tradition that Paul was beheaded in Rome
is presented in "The Acts of Paul" -- which Eusebius classified as
heretical in no uncertain terms.

Finally, it appears obvious that the author of the Acts of Paul,
whom we may say was at one stage in history referred to as
Leucius Charinus, brings Aesops fables into the Act. Paul is
the mouse who helps the lion by baptising him in the wilderness.
When Paul is thrown to the lions in the arena, and the gates go
up .... BANG CRASH BANG !!!

And the great roaring lion springs out into the arena!

ROAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRR, GGGGRRRERRRRRRRRR !!!

Huh? Is that you dear dear Paul?

Oh my dear Paul, it is you!!!!
How ya going mate?
How about a cold beer and pizza after the show?

When will the Pope learn about the Paul jokes by Leucius?

I wonder if the Pope has read Photius' account of Leucius?

It should be mentioned that the reason that scholarship
dates the authorship of "the Acts of Paul" to the early
centurie is that they accept the testimony of Eusebius,
via Tertullian, that the author wrote "The Acts of Paul"
out of "Love for Paul" somewhere in Asia. That he was
then dismissed for literary embellishments to the canon,
according to Tertullian. But is Tertullian a real person?

Momigliano suggests Tertullian is not a real person.
It is a tangled mess we have inherited.

My bet is that the canonical Paul is 4th century Eusebian fiction.
And the non-canonical Paul is 4th century Arian fiction.
I am looking for a good bookmaker.
Any recommendations?

arnoldo

I see. Still in the field of archaelogy when examining artifats it is relevant to examine all the available texts (if any). For an example see: Archaeology and Roman Society: Integrating Textual and Archaeological Data

With respect to the topic of this OP examining the texts may help to determine the date the belief that these artificats were in a certain place. As you pointed out Eusebius is a fourth century souce so we have a clue it possibly began from him or he is repeating a tradition from an earlier time. Fortunately we have a possible second century text which indicates that Peter and Paul were executed in Rome.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Arnoldo,

The text you quoted from Clement of Alexandria says nothing about Peter or Paul ever being in Rome, let alone dying there. In the case of Peter, it just says that he suffered many labors, gave testimony and went to heaven. It says nothing about where these things happened.

In the case of Paul, it says that he won noble renown after being exiled and stoned. It says that he preached in both the East and the West. Since Clement mentions no place east or west, it is difficult to know what he has in mind. The reference to "the furthest bounds of the West" would mean Great Britain, if he is talking about East and West in Earthly geographical terms. However, it makes no sense to say that Paul preached in Great Britain and then died after preaching to the rulers. It implies that the rulers are in Great Britain.

This conundrum is solved if we ask how Clement of Alexandria actually uses the terms West and East. We find this passage in his Exhortation to the Heathen, chapter 11 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/020811.htm):

Here "the West" means the land of darkness, the land that does not know God, the light. We may assume that Clement is consistent in his terminology. When he speaks of Paul preaching in the West and East, he means to Jews who know God and to Gentiles who do not know God. When he speaks of Paul reaching the farthest bounds of the West, he means the most ignorant people.

Clement uses the term "rulers of darkness" in "Who is the Rich man" (http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...t-richman.html) chapter 29, and says, "He it is that subjected angels, and principalities, and powers, for a great reward to serve us" We may take it that he is referring to supernatural powers (Pagan Gods). This simply suggests that Paul preached before pagan Gods, which simply means that Clement knows from the book of Acts, that Paul preached inside Greek temples in Athens and Corinth.

In any case the passages give no indication that Clement of Alexandria ever heard of Peter or Paul being in Rome.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay