David Bowden

It occurred to me during a chat with my wife that we didn't know whether such a thing was legal, or even politically possible.

Prior to his Damascus-road conversion, the New Testament records Saul hunting down Christians, apparently with the legal authority to punish - or at least bring Christians to punishment at the hands of others.

If Saul really had this power to punish people outside Jerusalem for not conforming with the Jewish religion, did anyone else have similar powers? Are there any situations like Saul's recorded anywhere, say perhaps in surviving Jewish or Roman records?

Who could grant such broad powers of enforcement, stretching as far as Damascus, as Acts tells? Wouldn't Roman authorities need to get involved at some point? Do historians know of Roman cooperation with any Jewish extraditions?

What my inquiry really boils down to is: Does the NT record some aspect of Jewish "religious law enforcement" that is confirmed elsewhere, or is this an invented detail that just makes Saul/Paul's conversion seem more dramatic and significant to Christians?

Thus: was his Damascus trip really for the purpose recorded in the Bible - and is it perhaps completely fictitious?

I'd be especially grateful for any pointers to existing documentation or commentary, online or in print, but any light you might shed on this is appreciated.

Thanks,
-Wanderer

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

abe smith

Opinion: Saul of Tarsus, and his alter ego "Saint" Paul after him, had no authority for ANYthing, except his own megalo-nothing fantasies of having-been divinely-appointed by his phantasy-lover = the Jesus whom SaulPaul never saw nor knew in reality. SaulPaul's opinions, which he flatussed as "divine truth", had no more validity than anyone-else's opinions. This opinion of mine is of course based upon those extremely-dubitable so-called testimonies = our only source of anything we "know" about him & about all-that. Abe

Ruy Lopez

from wanderer:
Who could grant such broad powers of enforcement, stretching as far as Damascus, as Acts tells? Wouldn't Roman authorities need to get involved at some point? Do historians know of Roman cooperation with any Jewish extraditions?
-----------------

I remember a book "Dead Sea Scrolls Deception" co-authored by Michael Baigent and ????. Book did not look very professional but had some logical points. Book says it was not possible for Saul to enforce anything in Damascus as you have already pointed out. A possible explanation is the place Damascus was quite near Jerusalem down the road to Jericho.
Another explanation, which is totally mine, lies in the date ACTS was really composed- sometime late, well after the turn of the 2nd century, say 125 CE. The political realities by 125 could be so different that the writer did not suspect 50-60 CE (before Jerusalem destruction).

tragic_pizza

In actuality, the persecution that Saul/Paul was authorized to carry out was sanctioned by the Jewish religious authorities, the Sanhedrin.

Here is the actual account from Acts:

Acts 9:1-2 --
Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

The Sanhedrin, while serving at the pleasure of the governor of the region, retained the authority of religious matters. Thus, Saul/Paul wouldn't have needed the approval of the Roman authorities. His was not a political, but religious, mission.

Jayhawker Soule

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an interesting discussion on <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13444a.htm" target="_blank">SANHEDRIN JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE</a>. Whatever the case may have been, once the punishment begins, Deuteronomy 7:17 assigns a key role to the 'witnesses'.

Ruy Lopez

from wide-eyed wanderer:
Thus: was his Damascus trip really for the purpose recorded in the Bible - and is it perhaps completely fictitious?
--------------

The key word is Damascus. One the Dead Sea Scrolls is titled Damascus Document that contains exhortations and legal aspects about divine justice but does not give a clue why it as called Damascus. We know the locale of the scrolls and we know that the Essenes were rebelling against the High Priest/Sanhedrin at this time in history. You can probably find the document as well as commentary in the web and satisfy your curiousity.

Regarding Tragic's opinion, the problem is this. Judea, at the time, was part of the Roman province of Syria where a governor ruled and at times and imperial legate(legatus,i), an alter ego of Caesar, takes over. Additionally, Rome was tolerant of ALL RELIGIONS provided homage is paid to the emperor. It is very difficult to imagine a temple enforcer like Saul being recognized in Damascus, Syria.

I'll stick to the option that there was another Damascus or the ACTS account is a "theological construct".

tragic_pizza

It is important to note that the letters were not to the Roman leadership of Damascus, but to the synagogue leadership from their recognized superiors, the Sanhedrin. Arguing Roman authority is apples and oranges. Saul didn't have to be recognized by anyone but those who ran the Jewish places of worship.

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: tragic_pizza ]</p>

Ruy Lopez

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
[QB]

It is important to note that the letters were not to the Roman leadership of Damascus, but to the synagogue leadership from their recognized superiors, the Sanhedrin. Arguing Roman authority is apples and oranges. Saul didn't have to be recognized by anyone but those who ran the Jewish places of worship.
---------------
I see where we disagree. You are using the text in Acts as historically true, literally in fact. That assumption or belief was never in my mind; thus my point about the Damascus Document and the theory that the Acts incident is fiction written long after it was supposed to have happened.

The issue now is whether the road incident and the Acts narrative is historical. Provided you don't claim that Acts is historical because it is the "Word of God", I am willing to engage.

Acts is an excellent work of an educated Hellenistic person living in the Aegean region who wrote around 120 CE according to Mack. I've read it myself and I'm reminded of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar or Hamlet. But it is fiction nonetheless despite its beauty. The narrative has tremendous appeal to the masses, the less educated, less critical and those prone to believe but does not pass the scrutiny of scholarship.

I'll provide two initial issues and you can decide to continue:
1.)The 10 or 11 long speeches cannot have been factual. After 60 to 80 years, no one will remember those long-winded orations. It's just like Mark Antony's friends, Romans, countrymen...
2.)Contents of genuine Pauline epistles conflict with Acts.

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: demon-sword ]</p>

tragic_pizza

[quote]Originally posted by demon-sword:
[QB]Discounting the documentation out-of-hand is an interesting debate method. If I discount the only documentation of the event as incorrect "simply because it is," then anything is indeed possible...

I'm a Fundamentalist Christian, and Pentecostal to boot. Guess which side I come down on .

Most liberal theologians place a late date on Acts without having any real basis for the late dating. I, and most conservative theologians, place a much earlier writing upon Acts. This is due to the fact that the document claims the same author as GLuke, and is beleived to have been written following GMatthew and before GJohn. My own estimate is that you're some 5 decades too late on the writing of Acts.

And again, you dismiss it as fiction, probably because of the dating. Is this opinion, or do you have some contemporary evidence of its fictitious nature?

By the same token, no proof exists that it was 60 to 80 years, rather than 10 to 25.

In exactly what areas?

Jayhawker Soule

Upon what evidence is this assertion based?

Did you just say that you believe it to have been written before GJohn because you (and others) believe it to have been written before GJohn? When do date GPaul?

BTW, I'd be interested in feedback on <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html" target="_blank">Luke and Josephus by Richard Carrier</a>

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>