... can you please confirm or deny there is absolutely no plausibility whatsoever on this Paul Herodian link.
Well what
is the link? It's based on the fact that Paul says 'salute Herodian, my kinsman' in Romans 16:11.
But let's look at that list: here I've entered Romans 16:1-24, edited to highlight the point:
"And I commend to you Phebe, our sister ... Salute Epenetus, my beloved ...
Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen ... Ampliatus, most beloved to me ... Stachys, my beloved ...
Herodian, my kinsman ... Persis, the dearly beloved ... Salute Rufus, elect in the Lord, and his mother and mine ...
Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen. Quartus, a brother ... " (verses 1-24)
So we have six kindsmen, a mother (also mother of Rufus) a sister, another brother and four beloveds.
Leaving the beloveds aside (one might argue this 'obviously' explains why Paul never married — he was gay and very active
) Einseman will have to show that if by kinsman Paul means Herodian is a close relative, then he'll have to say the same for eight others — that's eight more people to fit into the Herodian family tree. And we know from Josephus that Saulus was brother of Costobarus (Josephus:
Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chaper 1, paragraph 4) so the father was Costobarus, but then Rufus would have to be another brother Josephus doesn't mention at all ...
... or, we accept the scholarly theory, for which the evidence is overwhelming in the writings of antiquity, that by 'kinsman' Paul means a Jew, and that familial terms like brother and sister can indicate friendship, closeness or affection, as well as, but not necessarily, blood relation.
But, if Paul was of the family of Herod, and a convert, then why not say so? Herodian would be another convert, as are the others listed above — in fact defections from the Herodian family to Christianity would be somewhat epidemic! It would hardly be a secret, and it would only add to his kudos that he, of the family of the infamous Herod, a persecutor of Christians, had been called by Christ? Seems to me that if he was related to Herod, he would have made a big deal of it. And the Church would have made a big deal of it too, as it would have been something of a coup!
Pauls service to the high priest who is appointed by Herod.
I think there was a rota for the office of High Priest? I'd have to check that, but I'm pretty sure it's the case. perhaps RabbiO can correct me?
Acts 22:28 reveals Paul has Roman citizenship from birth in Judea which was under control of Herod.
No, Paul Tarsus in Cilicia is on the coast of Turkey, hundreds of miles from Judea.
+++
Here's the thing: If a book comes out saying 'this is wrong' then it's worth a look to check the argument. But if it says EVERYTHING is wrong, as Eisenman says, then that's a hard road to plough.
Frankly, I don't buy it. And no do most scholars. I could go on, but I think you'd think I was just gunning for the man. I checked critics online. He has his supporters, and his detractors. On balance, I am not a supporter ...
