Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: [Corpus-Paul] Why did Paul choose the Aegean?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Why did Paul choose the Aegean?
  • Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:12:34 -0500

Mark D. Nanos, restating Richard Fellows' question, asks:

>>So I think the question still stands, for those who do not deny the place
of reason in the pursuit of knowledge: why did Paul choose the Aegean?, and
when?, and from among what other available choices?, and how freely or
compelled by circumstances or convictions, including those derived from his
understanding of his role and its dependence upon his interpretation of
Scripture?, and so on ...<<

Good question. Unlike Richard, I am not so quick to try to harmonize the
accounts of Paul's journeys found in Acts with names and places found in the
Pauline letters, so I may not be able to offer a definitive answer to when
he started to disseminate his version of "good news." However, when it comes
to offering a suggestion as to why he chose the Aegean region (among
others), I tend to think of those modern social psychologists who propose
that we actually rationalize our behaviors more often than we let reason
dictate them. It has something to do with the human brain's built-in ability
to make sense out of the mass of experiences it is exposed to.

That being said, I would then suggest that Paul worked in areas he was
already familiar with, either growing up or - more likely - as a result of
the manner by which he made a living. He probably saw himself as "led" to
where he could judge his chances of success as better than even or good. The
author of Acts probably just assumed that Paul *must* have been "led" by God
to go where he did, in the style of legend.

Still, let's face it, for the bulk of the population of that day, extensive
travel was not "normal" or "usual" by any stretch of the imagination, except
for some elites, their political functionaries, military persons, or
merchants:

Elite: Neither the letters or Acts present much evidence for Paul possessing
elite status. He may like to drop names of city officials, etc, in his
letters, but he could have made acquaintance with them for reasons other
than in ther capacity of an elite.

Political Functionary: The author of Acts, and the author of 2 Cor, have
Paul claim to have acted as a political functionary of the High Priest,
visiting Damascus, to serve arrest warrants (although it is debatable how
much authority those warrants would have really given him). According to
some, the Romans considered Jews collectively as a single people (EQNOS) who
had the right to set up their own courts of justice and practice their
ancestral beliefs without molestation, regardless of where they were. The
High Priest, appointed by the Romans until 44 CE, and the temple hierarchy
appointed by the H.P. had authority over the temple apparatus and possibly
the right to derive income from land within Judaea that was not controlled
by Greek cities, Roman colonies, the Jewish king/ethnarch or Roman
government, etc. Herod of Chalcis had superintendence of the Temple and its
treasury and the right to appoint High Priests between 44 - 50 CE. Agrippa
II held this power between ca. 50 - 66 CE. I believe both Acts and 2 Cor
have Paul say he was extra zealous for the laws of his country in his
younger days. However, what kind of Jewish political functionary would be
traveling about the Mediterranean region enough to be so thoroughly familiar
with them as the Paul of Acts is presented as being? The letters do not
contradict the image of him as an experienced traveler. The origins of this
are murky, but it doers appear that envoys were sent out by the temple
authorities to collect free-will offerings and escort temple tax offerings
from Diaspora Jews back to Jerusalem. Presumably, these envoys could press
local Roman authorities to obtain free passage of the money or enforce the
judgements of Jewish courts. Paul could have functioned in such a capacity
over a period of time, both before and after his supposed conversion.

Military: In the letters, the author(s) frequently use military imagery.
Jews, however, were exempt from military service in the Roman army (both
legions and auxiliaries). Well, at least they were exempt from compulsory
conscription, although I suppose individual Jews could, and did, join up if
they were not especially observant of their ancestral faith. While the
Herodian princes usually recruited their armies from their non-Jewish
populations, I would think that there were *some* more-or-less observant
Jewish units in them as well. Those princes were king Herod the Great
(Judaea, Idumea, Samaria, Galilee, Peraea, Batanaea, Trachonitis, Auranitis,
Gaulanitis & Panias, 37 - 4 BCE); the ethnarch Archeleaus (Judea, Idumea &
Samaria, 4 BCE - 6 CE); the tetrarchs Antipas (Galilee & Peraea, 4 BCE - 39
CE), and Philip (Batanaea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, Panias &
parts of Ituraea, 4 BCE - ca. 33/4 CE); king Agrippa I (Batanaea,
Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, Panias, Ituraea & the former tetrarchy
of Lysanias, 37 CE, that plus Galilee and Peraea, 40 CE, and add to that
Judaea, Samaria and Idumea, 41 - 44 CE); king Herod of Chalcis (near
Damascus in the Lebanon, 41 - 50 CE)); king Agrippa II (Chalkis ca. 50 - ca.
53, exchanged for the former tetrarchy of Philip = Batanaea, Trachonitis,
Auranitis, Gaulanitis, Panias, Ituraea & the former tetrarchy of Lysanias,
ca. 53 - 85 or 86, when he may have lost control of some of his Jewish
territory, while retaining Trachonitis until maybe 92/93 CE). Hopefully I
have not got my dates mixed up, spelled anything horribly badly, or left out
anyone of importance. Still, while some of these units were involved in
military actions near and far from home, I doubt that any particular soldier
would become an experienced *independent* traveler of the sort Paul seems to
have been.

Merchant: Acts says Paul was a "tentmaker" by trade. Tents and awnings were
used extensively, both in cities and in the country and by the military. If
Acts is correct about his occupation, Paul could have traveled in connection
with contracts he had established, or was seeking to establish, with towns
and, more likely, Roman legionary or auxiliary units. I cannot recall off
the top of my head any account of Paul traveling anywhere outside the sphere
of Roman provinces, except Arabia. Both Acts and one of the letters say that
he visited Damascus, which was under the control of the Nabatean king Aretus
II (Harith). It is not clear to me what the author of Acts or that letter
meant by "Arabia." Eisenman and the revised ET of Schurer's _Jewish People_
show evidence that in Roman imagination "Arabia" was not always confined to
Nabatean Arabia, but sometimes included areas that served as buffer states
between Rome and Parthia, and areas of the Lebanon. I cannot help but think
of the two Jewish merchants, each with opposing approaches, who influenced
the conversions of queen Helena, and her sons (and later "kings") Monobazus
and Izatus, of Adiabene, one of those buffer states just mentioned. I am not
necessarily endorsing Eisenman's hypothesis, but I do think he may be onto
something here.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page