random said
Do we have any information on who said employers might have been? Who would consider the Christian sect such a menace (after so little time) that they would hire a professional persecutor to come all the way from Tarsus (?) to … do what exactly?
It’s right there in Thessalonians. Did people somehow miss the “Pauline employers” passages?
Let me summarize the text. Paul was hired by cartel of tent manufacturers (Conexus Tectum) with the explicit instruction to persecute Christians. In 2 Philemon (now out of print), Paul explains that, after his conversion and failure to repay his 45-shekel advance, Conexus Tectum spent five years attempting to assassinate him. Paul had also violated his NDA. Paul then explains that he was forced to hire Francila the Hun (ancestor of Attila the Hun) to protect him from the Conexus Tectum dagger men.
The situation temporarily resolves itself, when Paul is able to convert the dagger men to Christianity. But, soon thereafter, some followers of James show up on the scene and demand that the dagger men be circumcised. Believing this to be one cut too deep, the dagger men again turn on Paul, who is only saved by the salvation of the Holy Spirit, which sends three archangels to disarm the dagger men, and then circumcise them.
The whole narrative is truly fascinating and well worth the time, if you can read Koine Greek.
Very interesting thread thanks to all. Just a little side note I’ve read a great deal about Thomas Jefferson and his whole long process of creating the Jefferson Bible…its really interesting to me. He, as you probably know, saw Jesus as a great moral teacher but not divine. He was no fan of Paul (to put it mildly) and saw him as the chief corrupter of Jesus original teachings.
vergari said
It’s right there in Thessalonians. Did people somehow miss the “Pauline employers” passages?
…
The whole narrative is truly fascinating and well worth the time, if you can read Koine Greek.
Cute.
Since I am new to this forum I will assume your response is a subtle commentary on the inartful way I phrased my question, rather than a knee-jerk troll. The two could be confused.
I will try to formulate my question in more detail.
Lets assume that tradition is accurate, and that Paul was indeed a persecutor of Jesus followers before he wasn’t. I am wondering how he came to be an anti-Jesus zealot.
Tarsus is about 900 km from Jerusalem. With good Roman roads this is a journey that would have taken 2 weeks, and even with the Pax Romana there would have been the danger of brigandry along the way. Paul’s anti-Jesus activity happened within 5-6 years of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, if the generally accepted timelines are correct.
So how did it happen that a tentmaker in Tarsus felt impelled to take on the risks of a major voyage such as this in order to join the struggle against a fledgling aberrant sect? Was the Jesus movement already making such waves 2 years after the crucifixion that they were felt with such urgency 900 km from Jerusalem?
Paul may have acted on his own volition. He subsequently undertook much longer trips again and again. Nonetheless, the zealotry of his later activities stems by his own admission from his conversion. The idea that he just pulled up his stakes and took off for Jerusalem one day on a rumor about a dangerous rebel called Jesus of Nazareth is not very satisfying.
But if he did not act alone, then he must have been put up to his actions, “hired” if you will. One might posit that the Jewish establishment in Tarsus and elsewhere became alarmed at the happenings in Jerusalem. (Again: was the Jesus movement seen as such a major threat to the Jewish establishment so soon?) This is not impossible. The yearly pilgrimages to Jerusalem did make for an exchange of information across large distances. On the other hand, information traveled mainly as hearsay, and was often spotty. In Paul’s subsequent trips the local authorities seem to have often been initially uninformed about the Jesus movement, allowing Paul to preach with impunity, at least at first. It is hard to see what sort of actor might have been hiring zealots to go to Jerusalem and persecute the Jesus followers. So this scenario also doesn’t feel plausible.
random said
Cute.
Since I am new to this forum I will assume your response is a subtle commentary on the inartful way I phrased my question, rather than a knee-jerk troll. The two could be confused.
I’m new to the forum as well.
I was just having a little fun with the development of this idea that Paul was on a persecution payroll of some sort.
Greg Matthews said
I think it’s interesting and should be explored more. That article you link doesn’t reference it, but there was a book that came out recently that discusses the lack of persecution of Christians outside of the few times the Romans outlawed the religion. I don’t know Greek, but as someone with a lot of interest in linguistics I’d like to know more about this word διωγμός and how it really translates. The bible is loaded with instances of the wrong word being used in a translation. Is that the case here? I don’t know, but I’d like to. On the other hand, in Galatians 1 Paul says he “violently” persecuted the church and tried to destroy it (NRSV translation). The Marcionites have long fascinated me and I vaguely recall that they denied that Paul persecuted anything, but I’d think they had a vested interest in denying he persecuted anyone.There might be arguments both ways, but a simple blog post isn’t going to answer much.
I believe διωγμός comes from διώκω: to chase, pursue. In legal terminology: to prosecute or sue. You can derive a number of nouns similar to διωγμός from it, with essentially the same meaning: διωκή, διωκτύς. διώκω can also mean to pursue a lover, but for the NT the legal interpretation seems more appropriate.
The Latin equivalent persecutio is derived from sequor (to follow) and per („through“). Again, the compound verb persequor means to chase or (legal) prosecute.
So in both cases I suppose we can take the noun to mean that a persecution was (supposedly) a legal action (prosecution), obviously with rather severe consequences, but still, at its core, a legal action rather than an extrajudicial action such as, say, a lynching. (This is my interpretation)
Not sure that helps, but etymology is fun.
Throwing my 2 cents in…
There appears to be a huge problem with the whole story around Paul persecuting the Christians. In Acts 5:38-39, Gamaliel urges the Sanhedrin to “…Leave these men alone. Let them go! For if their purpose or endeavor is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them…”
- Gamaliel was a Pharisee.
- Paul was a Pharisee (something I seriously doubt).
- Paul studied under Gamaliel.
- The High Priest was a Sadducee.
- Paul got his orders to persecute the Christians from the High Priest.
- Pharisees and Sadducees did not play well together.
A Pharisee would not be taking his orders from Sadducee. If Paul was a Pharisee and a student of Gamaliel, it seems unlikely that he would have such a different opinion regarding how to treat Christians. He also would not be working for the High Priest, a Sadducee.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)