Roman DNA

[kbs2244]

Acts is not the only reference to Saul/Paul

In Romans Paul refers to members of Herod’s court as his “brother and mother”
This has been exhaustively researched. (Rom 16:11)

Paul's Herodian links

https://www.raystedman.org/new-testamen ... the-family

“The fact is that Paul mentions his relative, Herodion, in connection with these servants. You can see from his name that this man had connections with the family of Herod. This is also a hint to us that Paul himself had some connection with the ruling family of the Jews. His relative, Herodion, had become a Christian, and was living there in Rome as part of the household of either Aristobulus or Narcissus.

https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

And Josephus refers to a “Saulus” with very similar story to that of Saul/Paul.

“It is curious that in the Antiquities, following Josephus' description of the stoning of James and the plundering of the tithes of the poor priests by the rich chief priests, Josephus refers to Saulus as leading a riot in Jerusalem.”
“As we have seen above, there are notices in Josephus about a member of the Herodian family named "Saulus," again not a very common name in this period.”

“If it were indicative of actual familial relationships with Herodians, which in my view it is, then by itself it explains the hint of Herodian membership and/or activity in the early Christian community in Antioch. It also very easily explains the matter of Paul's Roman citizenship, which is such an important element in his escapes.”

So, he seems to have been a historical, Roman citizen, character even in non-Biblical sources.

But, despite his travels, he never is said to have visited Britain.

[Minimalist]

The earliest extant manuscript of Romans is 3d century. I'm afraid that's way too late for me to put much stock in anything about it.

But then again, I have the same trouble with the whole NT.

[Simon21]

I think the point is not whether one particularly believes this about St Paul, but that there is plenty of evidence from other parts of the Empire that foreigners were granted citizenship in return for service, there is considerable evidence from Egypt for example.

[Minimalist]

Just because someone was granted citizenship does not mean they automatically enrolled in the legions.

We do actually know quite a bit about where the various Imperial Legions were raised and served. For example, the 11th and 12th Legions were raised by Julius Caesar in North Italy before he began his campaign in Gaul. The 10th Legion was raised by Octavian to replace the 10th Legion which served his uncle in Gaul. Is it possible that there were foreigners who had recently been granted citizenship in the Legions? Yeah, its possible. But how many Africans, or Cretans, or Syrians, etc. could have been living in Cisalpine Gaul when Julius was gathering his army? I suspect damn few.

[kbs2244]

My point about Paul was that serving in the army was not the only way a non-citizen of the city of Rome could become a citizen of the empire.

[Simon21]

Just because someone was granted citizenship does not mean they automatically enrolled in the legions.

We do actually know quite a bit about where the various Imperial Legions were raised and served. For example, the 11th and 12th Legions were raised by Julius Caesar in North Italy before he began his campaign in Gaul. The 10th Legion was raised by Octavian to replace the 10th Legion which served his uncle in Gaul. Is it possible that there were foreigners who had recently been granted citizenship in the Legions? Yeah, its possible. But how many Africans, or Cretans, or Syrians, etc. could have been living in Cisalpine Gaul when Julius was gathering his army? I suspect damn few.

The answer to this is that we do not know. As I say Mary Beard intrepreting the various monuments on HW found evidence of garrison soldiers coming from all over the Empire.

And Caesar of course fought in Africa - are we to suppose he erected a colour bar to recruitment, there's no evidence he did.

[Minimalist]

After 212, every free male was made a citizen so once again, it depends on "when." And Caesar fought in Alexandria and in Tunisia. He did not get too far south.

[Simon21]

After 212, every free male was made a citizen so once again, it depends on "when." And Caesar fought in Alexandria and in Tunisia. He did not get too far south.

Last time I looked Tunisia and Alexandria were in Africa and the idea that Black Africans never left Africa South of the Sahara is a bit racist (why on earth couldn't they?), especially given Egypt itself had nubian rulers.

There was a belief held by some that all black africans did was run around with spears and warpaint and had no settlements, trade or culture (Europeans found it a handy myth when conquering [er bringing civilisation and the maxim} them) , but I thought that had long been disposed of.

[Minimalist]

Why couldn't they? They could. Why would someone deliberately set out to migrate in large numbers across the Sahara? Beats me. And yes, Nubia and Egypt came together along the NIle. No doubt of that. But Egypt was a special case among Roman provinces. It was considered the personal property of the emperor - because Augustus personally conquered it. It was run as a large grain factory!

You might find this interesting.

http://what-when-how.com/archaeology-of ... ent-egypt/

The Roman government recognized four principal ethnic groups in Egypt: Romans, Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians. Greek status, however, was limited to the citizens of the four Greek cities. All residents of the Egyptian countryside, whatever their origin, were Egyptians. Change of status was difficult as intermarriage between Greeks and non-Greeks was generally forbidden, as was admission of non-Greeks to the gymnasia, the principal institutional centers of Hellenization. Even the adoption of a Greek name by an Egyptian required the permission of the Roman government of Egypt. The result of these changes was a hardening of the divisions between the various ethnic groups in Egypt. In the cities a rigid social hierarchy emerged with the privileges of citizenship being limited to Romans and Greeks and Egyptians being treated as resident aliens, while Jews occupied an uneasy and unstable intermediate status.

You'll note who is missing in the list.

[kbs2244]

It is not obvious to me.
Maybe "blacks” IE "Nubians"
Not Sub-Sahara but East coast ethnic area.

[Minimalist]

Absolutely certain that there was genetic mixing along the Egyptian/Nubian border. That goes without saying, But that is still a long way from Alexandria. And the native "Egyptians" were pretty far down the social pecking order in their own country.

[Simon21]

Why couldn't they? They could. Why would someone deliberately set out to migrate in large numbers across the Sahara? Beats me. And yes, Nubia and Egypt came together along the NIle. No doubt of that. But Egypt was a special case among Roman provinces. It was considered the personal property of the emperor - because Augustus personally conquered it. It was run as a large grain factory!

You might find this interesting.

http://what-when-how.com/archaeology-of ... ent-egypt/

The Roman government recognized four principal ethnic groups in Egypt: Romans, Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians. Greek status, however, was limited to the citizens of the four Greek cities. All residents of the Egyptian countryside, whatever their origin, were Egyptians. Change of status was difficult as intermarriage between Greeks and non-Greeks was generally forbidden, as was admission of non-Greeks to the gymnasia, the principal institutional centers of Hellenization. Even the adoption of a Greek name by an Egyptian required the permission of the Roman government of Egypt. The result of these changes was a hardening of the divisions between the various ethnic groups in Egypt. In the cities a rigid social hierarchy emerged with the privileges of citizenship being limited to Romans and Greeks and Egyptians being treated as resident aliens, while Jews occupied an uneasy and unstable intermediate status.

You'll note who is missing in the list.

Oh I don't know, why did the Polynesian people occupy the islands of the vast Pacific? Why did Koories come to Australia? Maybe because travelling is what humans do? And black people are human.

You have noticed this list does not mention skin colour at all. And we know there are black Jews and Egyptians don't we?

Oh and The Roman army recruited in Egypt, we have the letters.

[Simon21]

Absolutely certain that there was genetic mixing along the Egyptian/Nubian border. That goes without saying, But that is still a long way from Alexandria. And the native "Egyptians" were pretty far down the social pecking order in their own country.

Black people were in Egypt long before the Romans and we need to be careful about taking docs about the positions of groups literally. Like the English in Dublin. The fact that intermarriage (and wearing Irish clothes) was so often forbidden indicates it was constantly taking place. The RSA's strict race laws against intermingling were often ignored in reality.

[Simon21]

Interestingly apropos the latter point one set of letters has a mother mourning her son joining the "barbarians" and by "barbarians" she means the army.