Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 08-31-2010, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I've looked for more information about the inscription that is claimed links Sergius Paulus to Cyprus.

From this old book it would seem that the inscription no longer exists, that it was used as a threshold to someone's store in 1880 and was being worn away then.

Here's a copy of the text:

and a translation:

'Apollonius to his father … son of … and to his mother Artemidora daughter of … consecrated the enclosure and this monument according to your own (i. e. his parents') commands … having filled the offices of clerk of the market, prefect, town-clerk, high priest, and having been in charge of the record-office. Erected on the 25th of the month Demarchexusius in the year. 13. He also revised the senate by means of assessors in the time of the proconsul Paulus.'

Our writer comments on the text:

The last two lines and a half after the date are proved, both by their matter and by the use of a different form of xi, to be later additions, inscribed afterwards to complete the list of Apollonius' offices.

We should also note that there was a large lacuna on the right of the text, so that "proconsul", ανθυπατος, is actually only ..]πατος (here ..]πατου). I saw one source give the date of the inscription as the 13th year [of Claudius], but beyond the thirteenth year it is merely tendentious conjecture.

In an appendix the writer discounts the possibility that the particular Paulus was Paullus Fabius Maximus (consul 11 BCE), though he is arguing against three other scholars of the time who supported Paullus Fabius Maximus.

The inscription doesn't help us in any direction. I think the fact that this Sergius Paullus was never a consul should end the matter, but we aren't dealing with evidence here, but willingness to believe.

spin

Actually, the reason I sent the link to the old book by the Littels was the mention of the Galenic proconsul L. Sergius Paulus in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (on p.688). I found the description of him by Galen really interesting: L. Sergius 'who is also Paulus' (ο και Παυλος), i.e. the exact copy of Luke's description of renamed Saul in Act 13:9, just two verses after the proconsul Sergius Paulus is introduced in the narrative. Of all the strange things that I have seen in the texts, this one is truly something else.

Jiri

avi · 08-31-2010, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Actually, the reason I sent the link to the old book by the Littels was the mention of the Galenic proconsul L. Sergius Paulus in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (on p.688). I found the description of him by Galen really interesting: L. Sergius 'who is also Paulus' (ο και Παυλος), i.e. the exact copy of Luke's description of renamed Saul in Act 13:9, just two verses after the proconsul Sergius Paulus is introduced in the narrative. Of all the strange things that I have seen in the texts, this one is truly something else.

Thanks Jiri, much appreciated.

If I am not in serious error, Galen's works exist today, largely as copies of copies of copies, many of which were translated back into Greek, from Latin, or Arabic "originals", i.e. copies themselves, the actual originals having disappeared within a century of Galen's death, according to my understanding.

I think we need to be a bit cautious about over-- interpreting anything "Galen" wrote.

If Constantine's mother could discover the wooden cross upon which JC was crucified, three centuries after the fact, then, it seems not too improbable to imagine that someone, somewhere, gave the order to "improve" the text of Galen, by inserting a few juicy bits, here and there....

As for the very reasonable question, of why anyone would seek to forge Galen's writings, so as to ensure that Galen's philosophical texts embraced characters described in Acts, or any of the other texts of the nascent Christian religion, I suppose that we underestimate the stress posed to the new religion, 1800 years ago, by people with half a brain, let alone, one that was whole.....

avi

Toto · 08-31-2010, 03:07 PM

avi - Marcus Aurelius reigned from 26 April 121 to 17 March 180 CE.

Any proconsul named "Sergius also known as Paulus" would be approximately a century older than the Sergius Paulus mentioned in Acts - if the accepted orthodox dating is correct.

But if Acts was in fact written in the mid second century as a historical novel and adventure tale, this coincidence is quite intriguing, and not exactly the sort of thing a Christian forger would add.

JoeWallack · 08-31-2010, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

avi - Marcus Aurelius reigned from 26 April 121 to 17 March 180 CE.

Any proconsul named "Sergius also known as Paulus" would be approximately a century older than the Sergius Paulus mentioned in Acts - if the accepted orthodox dating is correct.

But if Acts was in fact written in the mid second century as a historical novel and adventure tale, this coincidence is quite intriguing, and not exactly the sort of thing a Christian forger would add.

JW:
I'm afraid it's even worse than that:

The living age ..., Volume 137 By Eliakim Littell, Robert S. Littell, Making of America Project

Quote:

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.

In the now famous related essay by Dr. Carrier it has been pointed out how "Luke" appears to have made historical errors based on a misunderstanding of Josephus. The above is evidence (eerily similiar to the Lysanias error) that what "Luke" did was intentional (used Josephus as background information for a story which was not limited by historical information).

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

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Artemus · 08-31-2010, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemus

At the risk of wasting time with a very naive question, if it is accepted that the author of Luke/Acts copied much of Mark and probably used "Q" in writing his gospel, why would it be considered radical to look for documents that he may have used in writing Acts as well? The naming of the same three rebel leaders in Acts and the inclusion of a census in the gospel in particular would seem to make the proposition that "Luke" had access to Josephus reasonable. Perhaps not proven, but at least on the surface not a manufactured argument either. Is there something I'm missing?

The conservative Christians that I keep chatting with refuse to date Acts any later than ~62 CE simply because it does not mention the destruction of the Temple or the execution of Paul. For them every other theory is considered fringe.

Isn't that the same argument from silence that is rejected when applied to the fact that Paul doesn't mention any details about the life of Christ?

mountainman · 08-31-2010, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

In the now famous related essay by Dr. Carrier it has been pointed out how "Luke" appears to have made historical errors based on a misunderstanding of Josephus.

The above is evidence (eerily similiar to the Lysanias error) that what "Luke" did was intentional (used Josephus as background information for a story which was not limited by historical information).

"Dr. Carrier's" summary of XVI. Eusebius, the First History of the Church, and the Earliest Complete Bibles is also relevant.

Quote:

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

Quote:

... 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 ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

.... we aren't dealing with evidence here, but willingness to believe.

The pattern of evidence (and its lack) suggests that the ancient historical truth has been piously fabricated.
The evidence suggests "later" and/or "late" large scale forgery - with a modus operandi suspiciously akin to the "Historia Augusta".
Why beat around the bush? There are just two questions to be answered:

(1) "What's the worst possible case scenario"?
(2) "Will our current beliefs allow us to willingly discuss this"?

aa5874 · 09-01-2010, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

The conservative Christians that I keep chatting with refuse to date Acts any later than ~62 CE simply because it does not mention the destruction of the Temple or the execution of Paul. For them every other theory is considered fringe.

Isn't that the same argument from silence that is rejected when applied to the fact that Paul doesn't mention any details about the life of Christ?

And Justin Martyr writing in the 2nd century did NOT mention Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings, no bishops, not even his OWN bishop, the day of Pentecost when the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost, or any gospel writers named called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

avi · 09-01-2010, 04:45 AM

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, it bodes ill for the forum if one member's response is blacklisted (in this case, whitewashed) before quill touches ink.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

avi - Marcus Aurelius reigned from 26 April 121 to 17 March 180 CE.

Any proconsul named "Sergius also known as Paulus" would be approximately a century older than the Sergius Paulus mentioned in Acts - if the accepted orthodox dating is correct.

But if Acts was in fact written in the mid second century as a historical novel and adventure tale, this coincidence is quite intriguing, and not exactly the sort of thing a Christian forger would add.

Thanks for this, much appreciated.
avi

andrewcriddle · 09-01-2010, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Just noticed, Sergius Paulus the so-called "proconsul" of Cyprus (13:7) was never a consul. Cyprus was obviously a senatorial province, so how could the senate have ever appointed a non-consul as a proconsul? While the fundies are fabricating proconsuls, what do they have to say about this one?

spin

Are you sure about this in the imperial period ? livius.org says

Quote:

Under the empire, the governors of the senatorial provinces were usually called proconsuls, although they were in fact former praetors. They served typically twelve months.

Other internet sites make similar claims though I haven't found a good primary source.

Andrew Criddle

I think I have found the primary evidence that in the imperial period ex-praetors governing senatorial provinces were called proconsuls. Cassius_Dio on the reforms of Augustus

Quote:

Such, then, was the apportionment of the provinces. And wishing, even then, to lead the Romans a long way from the idea that he was at all monarchical in his purposes, Caesar undertook for only ten years the government of the provinces assigned him; for he promised to reduce them to order within this period, and boastfully added that, if they should be pacified sooner, he would the sooner restore them, to the senate. 2 Thereupon he first appointed the senators themselves to govern both classes of provinces, except Egypt. This province alone he assigned to a knight, the one we have already named, for the reasons mentioned there. Next he ordained that the governors of senatorial provinces should be annual magistrates, chosen by lot, except when a senator enjoyed a special privilege because of the large number of his children or because of his marriage. 3 These governors were to be sent out by vote of the senate in public meeting; they were to carry no sword at their belt nor to wear military uniform; 4 the name of proconsul was to belong not only to the two ex-consuls but also to the others who had merely served as praetors or who held at least the rank of ex-praetors; both classes were to employ as many lictors as were usual in the capital; and they were to assume the insignia of their office immediately upon leaving the •pomerium and were to wear them constantly until they returned. 5 The other governors, on the other hand, were to be chosen by the emperor himself and were to be called his envoys and propraetors, even if the men selected were ex-consuls. Thus, of these two titles which had been in vogue so long under the republic, he gave that of praetor to the men chosen by him, on the ground that from very early times it had been associated with warfare, calling them propraetors; and he gave the name of consul to the others, on the ground that their duties were more peaceful, styling them proconsuls. 6 For he reserved the full titles of consul and praetor for Italy, and designated all the governors outside of Italy as acting in their stead. So, then, he caused the appointed governors to be known as propraetors and to hold office for as much longer than a year as should please him; he made them wear the military uniform, and a sword, with which they are permitted to execute even soldiers. 7 For no one else, whether proconsul, propraetor, or procurator, has been given the privilege of wearing a sword without also having been accorded the right to put a soldier to death; indeed, this right has been granted, not only to the senators, but also to the knights who are entitled to wear a sword. 8 So much for this. All the propraetors alike employ five lictors, and, indeed, all of them except those who were ex-consuls at the time of appointment to governorships receive their title from this very number. Both classes alike assume the decorations of their position of authority when they enter their appointed province and lay them aside immediately upon completing their term of office.

Hence the governor of Cyprus would not necessarily be an ex-consul but would in any case have the title of proconsul.

Andrew Criddle

Cege · 09-01-2010, 06:26 PM

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?

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.

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

08-31-2010, 03:07 PM	#73
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	avi - Marcus Aurelius reigned from 26 April 121 to 17 March 180 CE. Any proconsul named "Sergius also known as Paulus" would be approximately a century older than the Sergius Paulus mentioned in Acts - if the accepted orthodox dating is correct. But if Acts was in fact written in the mid second century as a historical novel and adventure tale, this coincidence is quite intriguing, and not exactly the sort of thing a Christian forger would add.

09-01-2010, 06:26 PM	#80
Cege Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 36078 Posts: 849	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? 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.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.