Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-01-2010, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Is the claim that Saul/Paul was born a Roman citizen historically accurate? would his Jewish father reasonably have become a Roman citizen in Taurus in the early 1st century?

There is no way to know, but that doesn't stop people from writing about it.

If Paul's father was a "tentmaker" he might have worked supplying tents to the Roman army, which might have gotten him citizenship, which he would have passed on to Paul.

It seems more likely that Paul's citizenship was a plot device for the author of Acts.

Quote:

Is the claim that the almost torturer of Saul/Paul paid a "high cost" to become a Roman citizen historically accurate? My attempts to find what it cost for a non-citizen to buy citizenship have come up nil.

Some old threads:

Buying Roman Citizenship

The Citizenship of Paul

eta: There is a link in those threads that no longer works. The page on Roman Citizenship can be read here

From that link

Quote:

Cheapening Of Citizenship And Changing Attitudes

Tacitus once compares unfavorably the attitude toward granting citizenship under the Empire with that of the Republic, when it was granted only seldom and only for courage. Basically, by the late first century, being a Roman citizen was not inherently so important. Although there were still some privileges in the law, these became less significant as more and more lower-class people became citizens, either through the grant of citizenship to entire communities or through honorable discharge after military service. The invocation of his protection was a citizen by the tent maker known as St. Paul illustrates the incongruity of such a person having a privileged position compared to a wealthy peregrine. To Roman sensibilities, which had a strong sense of hierarchy, this situation made no sense. Hence, the law came increasingly to distinguish not between citizen and non-citizen, but between wealthy and poor, whatever the citizenship status. By the early third century, there were not so many communities left to Romanize in the west and the ruling class of the Greek east had become fully assimilated into the system through viritane grants of citizenship. Hence, it was time to do away with the distinction altogether.

mountainman · 09-01-2010, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW

Toto, is there a way to filter this so aa and mm can not see it?

Even if a joke, as I hope it must be ....

Hi avi,

Dont worry. Be happy. I think I can hear JW laughing from here.

But how on Earth did JW dig this intriguing material up on Galen?
The historical accuracy of the authors of the new testament might be questionable if they used Galen as a source.

We dont want to question this do we?
OMG ... Galen !
Who was in charge of the preservation of literature?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW

From the Sergius Paulus of Luke the physician
we turn to the Sergius Paulus of Galen the physician.

Soon after the accession of M. Aurelius (ad. 161) Galen paid his first visit to Rome, where he stayed for three or four years. Among other persons whom he met there was L. Sergius Paulus, who had been already consul suffectus about A.d. 150, and was hereafter to be consul for the second time in A.d. 168 (on this latter occasion as the regular consul of the year), after which time he held the prefecture of the city.* He is probably also the same person who is mentioned elsewhere as proconsul of Asia in connection with a Christian martyrdom, f This later Sergius Paulus reproduces many features of his earlier namesake. Both alike are public men; both alike are proconsuls; both alike show an inquisitive and acquisitive disposition. The Sergius Paulus of the Acts, dissatisfied (as we may suppose) alike with the coarse mythology of popular religion and with the lifeless precepts of abstract philosophies, has recourse first to the magic of the sorcerer Elymas, and then to the theology of the apostles Barnabas and Saul, for satisfaction. The Sergius Paulus of Galen is described as " holding the foremost place in practical life as well as in philosophical studies;" he is especially mentioned as a student of the Aristotelian philosophy; and he takes a very keen interest in medical and anatomical learning. Moreover, if we may trust the reading, there is another striking coincidence between the two accounts. The same expression, " who is also Paul " (6 Koi IlavAof), is used to describe Saul of Tarsus in the context of the Acts, and L. Sergius in the account of Galen. Not the wildest venture of criticism could so trample on chronology as to maintain that the author of the Acts borrowed from these treatises of Galen ; and conversely I have no desire to suggest that Galen borrowed from St. Luke. But if so, the facts are a warning against certain methods of criticism which find favor in this age. To sober critics, the coincidence will merely furnish an additional illustration of the permanence of type which forms so striking a feature in the great Roman families. One other remark is suggested by Galen's notices of his friend. Having introduced him to us as " Sergius who is also Paulus," he drops the former name altogether in the subsequent narrative, and speaks of him again and again as Paulus simply. This illustrates the newly-published Cyprian inscription, in which the proconsul of that province is designated by the one name Paulus only.

PhilosopherJay · 09-02-2010, 05:48 PM

Hi Mountainman,

I like the statement "Moreover, if we may trust the reading, there is another striking coincidence between the two accounts. The same expression, " who is also Paul " (6 Koi IlavAof), is used to describe Saul of Tarsus in the context of the Acts, and L. Sergius in the account of Galen. Not the wildest venture of criticism could so trample on chronology as to maintain that the author of the Acts borrowed from these treatises of Galen."

It it obvious that "not the wildest venture of criticism could so trample on chronology" means that the writer, to his horror has considered the only reasonable explanation for the two phrases appearing in the two text, that the writer of Acts copied from Galen.

This provides sufficient proof for any reasonable person that "Acts of the Apostles" was written or edited post 160 C.E. and the writer most probably simply used a name Sergius Paulius that he found in a book by Galen. That is the best evidence we have for the date of the work.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Even if a joke, as I hope it must be ....

Hi avi,

Dont worry. Be happy. I think I can hear JW laughing from here.

But how on Earth did JW dig this intriguing material up on Galen?
The historical accuracy of the authors of the new testament might be questionable if they used Galen as a source.

We dont want to question this do we?
OMG ... Galen !
Who was in charge of the preservation of literature?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW

From the Sergius Paulus of Luke the physician
we turn to the Sergius Paulus of Galen the physician.

Soon after the accession of M. Aurelius (ad. 161) Galen paid his first visit to Rome, where he stayed for three or four years. Among other persons whom he met there was L. Sergius Paulus, who had been already consul suffectus about A.d. 150, and was hereafter to be consul for the second time in A.d. 168 (on this latter occasion as the regular consul of the year), after which time he held the prefecture of the city.* He is probably also the same person who is mentioned elsewhere as proconsul of Asia in connection with a Christian martyrdom, f This later Sergius Paulus reproduces many features of his earlier namesake. Both alike are public men; both alike are proconsuls; both alike show an inquisitive and acquisitive disposition. The Sergius Paulus of the Acts, dissatisfied (as we may suppose) alike with the coarse mythology of popular religion and with the lifeless precepts of abstract philosophies, has recourse first to the magic of the sorcerer Elymas, and then to the theology of the apostles Barnabas and Saul, for satisfaction. The Sergius Paulus of Galen is described as " holding the foremost place in practical life as well as in philosophical studies;" he is especially mentioned as a student of the Aristotelian philosophy; and he takes a very keen interest in medical and anatomical learning. Moreover, if we may trust the reading, there is another striking coincidence between the two accounts. The same expression, " who is also Paul " (6 Koi IlavAof), is used to describe Saul of Tarsus in the context of the Acts, and L. Sergius in the account of Galen. Not the wildest venture of criticism could so trample on chronology as to maintain that the author of the Acts borrowed from these treatises of Galen ; and conversely I have no desire to suggest that Galen borrowed from St. Luke. But if so, the facts are a warning against certain methods of criticism which find favor in this age. To sober critics, the coincidence will merely furnish an additional illustration of the permanence of type which forms so striking a feature in the great Roman families. One other remark is suggested by Galen's notices of his friend. Having introduced him to us as " Sergius who is also Paulus," he drops the former name altogether in the subsequent narrative, and speaks of him again and again as Paulus simply. This illustrates the newly-published Cyprian inscription, in which the proconsul of that province is designated by the one name Paulus only.

andrewcriddle · 09-04-2010, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Mountainman,

I like the statement "Moreover, if we may trust the reading, there is another striking coincidence between the two accounts. The same expression, " who is also Paul " (6 Koi IlavAof), is used to describe Saul of Tarsus in the context of the Acts, and L. Sergius in the account of Galen. Not the wildest venture of criticism could so trample on chronology as to maintain that the author of the Acts borrowed from these treatises of Galen."

It it obvious that "not the wildest venture of criticism could so trample on chronology" means that the writer, to his horror has considered the only reasonable explanation for the two phrases appearing in the two text, that the writer of Acts copied from Galen.

This provides sufficient proof for any reasonable person that "Acts of the Apostles" was written or edited post 160 C.E. and the writer most probably simply used a name Sergius Paulius that he found in a book by Galen. That is the best evidence we have for the date of the work.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

The passage from Galen comes from "On Prognosis" written in CE 177 or 178.
Use of this work by the author of Acts would require a very late date for Acts.

Andrew Criddle

Solo · 09-04-2010, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Mountainman,

I like the statement "Moreover, if we may trust the reading, there is another striking coincidence between the two accounts. The same expression, " who is also Paul " (6 Koi IlavAof), is used to describe Saul of Tarsus in the context of the Acts, and L. Sergius in the account of Galen. Not the wildest venture of criticism could so trample on chronology as to maintain that the author of the Acts borrowed from these treatises of Galen."

It it obvious that "not the wildest venture of criticism could so trample on chronology" means that the writer, to his horror has considered the only reasonable explanation for the two phrases appearing in the two text, that the writer of Acts copied from Galen.

This provides sufficient proof for any reasonable person that "Acts of the Apostles" was written or edited post 160 C.E. and the writer most probably simply used a name Sergius Paulius that he found in a book by Galen. That is the best evidence we have for the date of the work.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

The passage from Galen comes from "On Prognosis" written in CE 177 or 178.
Use of this work by the author of Acts would require a very late date for Acts.

Andrew Criddle

Hi Andrew,
do you think there is an alternative, given the proximity in the text of Acts of the first mention of Saul as Paul to the governor Sergius Paul ?

I was thinking of one possible explanation but my knowledge of antiquity is nowhere near to being able to make a call on this. In the mediaeval history, some leaders accepted nicknames which were not very flattering, either as a way to further their nasty reputation (Ivan "the Terrible", Vlad the "Draculea" / Δρακων e.g.) or, in their gregarious nature as terms of endearment. There were two military leaders in the Hussite wars who acquired nicknames to distingush them from each other: Procop the Great (popularly known as Procop the Bald) and Procop the Small (aka 'Prokupek', a diminutive of Procop, something like 'Miniprocop'). They died side by side in the battle of Lipany (1434).

I kind of wondered if the 'ho kai' epithet of 'Paulos' or (possibly others) had similar function in antiquity. Would there be any examples of historical use of such nicknames in the Greco-Roman world ?

Thanks.

Best,
Jiri

Toto · 09-04-2010, 10:57 AM

Interesting. Modern Italian surnames are often based on insults.

perils of empire

Quote:

The cognomen was usually a nickname that distinguished different family groups within the by now quite large number of clan members. Oddly enough, the nicknames were often unflattering descriptions of physical or personality characteristics. Examples are Brutus (“stupid”) Caesar (“hairy”) and Cicero (“chickpea”.)

Chickpea supposedly refers to a prominent wart the size of a chickpea.

The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) By James S. Jeffers p 203: "The majority of cognomina in the Republic were unflattering, but flattering cognomina became popular in the Empire."

The Edinburgh Companion to Ancient Greece and Rome (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Edward Bispham, Thomas J. Harrison, Brian A. Sparkes p 468

Quote:

As will have been seen, many cognomina are rather unflattering in a lexical sense, and this (perceived as another sharp distinction between Roman and Greek naming habits) has led to a largely fruitless debate on how and why they came to be used voluntarily by the Romans. One influential suggestion is that they originated in the crude insults and mockery applied by the mob to those who sought their votes or harangued them in political contexts. This leaves open the question of why the mob's targets (and their heirs) were so happy to retain them. In fact, many cognomina are neutral at worst and it is hopeless and unnecessary to provide a single account for the origin of such a wide category.

mountainman · 09-05-2010, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Mountainman,

I like the statement "Moreover, if we may trust the reading, there is another striking coincidence between the two accounts. The same expression, " who is also Paul " (6 Koi IlavAof), is used to describe Saul of Tarsus in the context of the Acts, and L. Sergius in the account of Galen. Not the wildest venture of criticism could so trample on chronology as to maintain that the author of the Acts borrowed from these treatises of Galen."

It it obvious that "not the wildest venture of criticism could so trample on chronology" means that the writer, to his horror has considered the only reasonable explanation for the two phrases appearing in the two text, that the writer of Acts copied from Galen.

This provides sufficient proof for any reasonable person that "Acts of the Apostles" was written or edited post 160 C.E. and the writer most probably simply used a name Sergius Paulius that he found in a book by Galen. That is the best evidence we have for the date of the work.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

The passage from Galen comes from "On Prognosis" written in CE 177 or 178.
Use of this work by the author of Acts would require a very late date for Acts.

The author presenting this analysis states that he has "no desire to suggest that Galen borrowed from St Luke." Perhaps the authorship of Acts was in fact very late? What other alternatives exist? Any ideas are welcomed. Can this textual useage be perceived as a simple "coincidence"? Should the idea be subject to floccinaucinihilipilification?

Or rather, returning to Philosopher Jay's comment, does it "provide sufficient proof" of this very late date to "Acts"?

Solo · 09-05-2010, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Interesting. Modern Italian surnames are often based on insults.

perils of empire

Quote:

The cognomen was usually a nickname that distinguished different family groups within the by now quite large number of clan members. Oddly enough, the nicknames were often unflattering descriptions of physical or personality characteristics. Examples are Brutus (“stupid”) Caesar (“hairy”) and Cicero (“chickpea”.)

Chickpea supposedly refers to a prominent wart the size of a chickpea.

The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) By James S. Jeffers p 203: "The majority of cognomina in the Republic were unflattering, but flattering cognomina became popular in the Empire."

The Edinburgh Companion to Ancient Greece and Rome (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Edward Bispham, Thomas J. Harrison, Brian A. Sparkes p 468

Quote:

As will have been seen, many cognomina are rather unflattering in a lexical sense, and this (perceived as another sharp distinction between Roman and Greek naming habits) has led to a largely fruitless debate on how and why they came to be used voluntarily by the Romans. One influential suggestion is that they originated in the crude insults and mockery applied by the mob to those who sought their votes or harangued them in political contexts. This leaves open the question of why the mob's targets (and their heirs) were so happy to retain them. In fact, many cognomina are neutral at worst and it is hopeless and unnecessary to provide a single account for the origin of such a wide category.

Thanks, Toto. This is useful info.

Best,
Jiri

andrewcriddle · 09-06-2010, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The passage from Galen comes from "On Prognosis" written in CE 177 or 178.
Use of this work by the author of Acts would require a very late date for Acts.

Andrew Criddle

Hi Andrew,
do you think there is an alternative, given the proximity in the text of Acts of the first mention of Saul as Paul to the governor Sergius Paul ?

IMO the parallel with Galen is coincidence. Given that Galen is speaking of someone called Sergius Paulus it is straightforward for him to refer to Sergius Paulus as Sergius also Paulus. Given that Luke is speaking of someone called Paul and Saul it is straightforward for him to say Saul also Paul.
(One should note that Galen was a very prolific writer, there is a vast amount of surviving Galenic text in which to search for parallels.)

The point I'm unclear about is whether in Luke's narrative there is some significance to the fact that Saul is first called Paul immediately after the encounter with Sergius Paulus. (And if so, what ?)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 10-04-2010, 06:10 AM

I have finally managed to track down the critical edition and translation of Galen's On Prognosis by Nutton. pps 80-81 cover the relevant passage. The text of this work is in rather an unsatisfactory condition but on external (manuscript) evidence alone we should read SERGIOS TE KAI PAULOS which can hardly be right. The traditional printed text has SERGIOS TE hO KAI PAULOS following one manuscript, which is quite possible Greek. Nutton however thinks that KAI is probably an interpolation by a careless scribe and we should read SERGIOS TE PAULOS in which case the coincidence with Acts disappears.

Andrew Criddle

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

10-04-2010, 06:10 AM	#90
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	I have finally managed to track down the critical edition and translation of Galen's On Prognosis by Nutton. pps 80-81 cover the relevant passage. The text of this work is in rather an unsatisfactory condition but on external (manuscript) evidence alone we should read SERGIOS TE KAI PAULOS which can hardly be right. The traditional printed text has SERGIOS TE hO KAI PAULOS following one manuscript, which is quite possible Greek. Nutton however thinks that KAI is probably an interpolation by a careless scribe and we should read SERGIOS TE PAULOS in which case the coincidence with Acts disappears. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.