-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Er...no.
Areopagus was always the place for religious offenses. Indeed, it was presided by the archon basileus, the archon in charge of religion in Athens. Same court that tried Socrates for impiety.
Heck, the only reason it always retained jurisdiction over murder was precisely because murder was a religious crime. It was "impious" and implied "religious pollution". Read your Classics. It's the running theme of all the tragedies.
If Paul was trying introduce new gods into Athens and corrupting the morals of Athenian youth, that's where he'd be hauled.
Last edited:
That's not really a fair comparison. In 60, they were very few, barely enough to put on a few decent circus shows.
Yes, there were many more Christians in the 4th C.. But you seem to be overlooking the Diocletian persecutions.
The Diocletian persecutions of 303-04 were quite serious. Produced a lot more martyrs than all prior persecutions added together - estimated in the many thousands, and the higher classes were taken out first. The court nobles and army were pretty thoroughly purged of Christians in 299, in 303 was the turn of the civil service and clergy, and in 304, the hoi polloi.
That's only a few years before Constantine. Whatever "political value" they may have had before, it was pretty much broken by the Diocletian persecutions. The Christian community was pretty badly battered, decapitated of its more notable members, and bitterly divided and feuding within itself (resistance vs. collaborationists). So it was hardly in great shape when Constantine came around. They didn't really have much to offer politically. Except insofar as rioting in cities - which Christian mobs could still do and did in Rome as recently as 308.
But these lower class urban mobs weren't really a "force to reckon with". He doesn't need their "support". He just needs them not go rioting and burning down stuff. Throwing them a bone to keep them quiet seems sensible enough.
After all, his predecessors did it. His big rival, Maxentius himself, introduced a modicum of tolerance in 309, and allowed the first open elections of bishops, to quiet the aforementioned riots in Rome - although he quickly reversed himself and restarted persecutions when the riots died down (he promptly arrested and sent the same bishops off to die).
And, lest we forget, Eastern Emperor Galerius beat Constantine to the tolerance punch. He ordered the end of persecutions in the east in 311 - albeit he was already on his deathbed. (And Christians were pretty battered there too - if ancient Christian lore is anything to be believed, the executions of Christians in Nicomedia in the 300s well exceeded those of Rome).
Last edited:
You're on the right track but you're quite wrong on your conclusion. The Areos Pagos did have a "religious" trait.
People who would 'corrupt the morals of Athenian youth' were not sent to the Areos Pagos. Socrates for example was judged at Eliaia, the highest court for normal offenses. This was still around by the time of Paul and it was still its authority to judge such matters.
The Areos Pagos had limited purposes and served as a court only for the worst of crimes. Murder, the most common. The rest involved pederastry or crimes against own family members etc. One did not simply go to the Areos Pagos to preach. He was going there to save his life over a serious offense that'd deprive him of it.
Paul and the Areos Pagos means two things. Either Paul was convicted to death or a life sentence(which was still death but after a few weeks or so) or he'd manage to convert ALL of them. The story says that Paul managed to convert an alleged judge(who did not carry the name Archon but a funny name that held no bearing, hence he was not a judge) and a woman. Women were not allowed to be at Areos Pagos unless they were on trial. And that was quite rare.
So the story is proven false just by connecting dots. Religion won't let you connect the dots though, "have faith and doubt not", remember?
You got evidence for that? I thought we had no idea where Socrates was tried. Contemporary accounts have him indicted by by the basil archon and the trial presided by the basil archon, which strongly suggests the venue was the Areopagus, not the Heliaia.
It's common knowledge.
It's even on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliaia#Socrates.27_trial
If anything, contemporary sources suggest he was tried at Eliaia. It wouldn't make sense to have him tried at Areos Pagos. It's like saying the Maracana is going to host the Olympics basketball final in 2016. That's not its purpose.
Also need to note that Areos Pagos had 9 or11 judges or something, don't remember exactly. Their ruling was iron. There was no jury in those cases.
Eliaia had 1,000 judges, 51 or 101 or 201 or 301 and on were appointed given the case and there was a jury of civilians as well (an even number though)
Last edited:
Wikipedia cites Socrates' Apology (by Plato) as its source. I have the book somehwere in the house - in Greek obviously - so I could find a way to show this to you. I've explained in the previous post the differences between Eliaia and Areos Pagos. Socrates had a jury of 500. Areos Pagos had no juries, just 9 or 11 judges that handled all cases with no jury.
Areos Pagos stopped being a court available for any case during the Golden Era of Pericles. Ever since, it only was used for murder cases and for constitution/democratic stuff. Showing me a random book by a Canadian professor doesn't mean much. Everything is a 'source'. The problem is how one obtains a source.
I could write and publish a book saying random stories that 400 years from now people will comment on and say "look, this book is my source". It doesn't mean anything... Learn how to differentiate between facts and opinions. A book that lacks what is known to be the real story is merely a bad opinion.
What the author is suggesting about the Areos Pagos is wrong and is found in no contemporary source of note.
Wiki could just as well have cited the Three Musketeers. Plato's Apology does not say where it was.
If it had, scholars wouldn't be debating over the venue. And there is a debate.
There can be no debate when Areos Pagos was a place where murderers and serious offenders were tried in front of less than a dozen lifetime judges and no jury. Socrates was convicted by the jury, 280 votes to 220. 500 votes means it was in Heliaia. It's as simple as that.
The only reason there is a debate is because this will redefine Christian history. If St Paul was viewed as someone who has been were Socrates was and no harm was done, he becomes a figure. If people wonder why St Paul was in a place were only murderers and that sort of offenders wandered, then it will create confusion within the "flock". It's all a matter of simple research and a basic understanding of a few parameters. Speaking the language also helps as translations are often way off.
The only reason there is a debate is because this will redefine Christian history. If St Paul was viewed as someone who has been were Socrates was and no harm was done, he becomes a figure. If people wonder why St Paul was in a place were only murderers and that sort of offenders wandered, then it will create confusion within the "flock". It's all a matter of simple research and a basic understanding of a few parameters. Speaking the language also helps as translations are often way off.
Hellenic foundation:
http://www.ime.gr/chronos/04/gr/society/312trad_courts.html
Solon reforms Athenian law in the early 6th century BC and gives judicial power to Heliaia. In the classical era, all judicial power was handed to Heliaia and the parliament of 500 was in charge of serious crimes but not lethal (causes of serious injuries etc)
Draco issued a new type of judges, the efetes("appealers") who were in charge of various trials and some murder cases that didn't make the Areos Pagos.
The Areos Pagos stopped being the general Athenian court of law in the early 6th century and had never gotten its power ever since. Everything other than murder and the other things I mentioned was handled by other courts of law
And to my surprise, from a school book http://www.xsap.gr/76_138ds_xsap/Sxoleio/drastiriotites/arxaia_athina.files/areios_pagos.pdf
Essentially:
1) Ancient court of law
2) 752 BC they took over power of Athens when the kingdom fell
3) Solon in 592BC restricts their power
4) They were pissed by this so Solon allowed them to also judge cases of treason, looting of public property, mutiny, bribes, sacrilege and scamming the public.
5) During the reign of Peisistratos (546-510BC) they are revoked of all their powers and had returned to their original purpose which was to only judge murder cases.
6) They took over Athens between 479BC and 462BC.
7) In 462BC, Ephialtes abolished their power and instated the Ecclesia, the parliament of the 500 and Heliaia courts of law as the judicial power of Athens while Areos Pagos was only used for murder cases.
8) Socrates is tried somewhere at this point.
9) 344BC, Democritus gives Areos Pagos the power to validate court decisions regarding Athenian citizens.
So when Socrates was tried, the Areos Pagos only tried murder cases and had no real power over Athens. Everything, even contemporary sources that mention it by word, suggest that he was tried at Heliaia.
When Paul came to Athens, the Areos Pagos still only tried murder cases and it only had an effect on appeals by Athenian citizens. Since the story does not involve Paul being a witness to an Athenian and since he was not an Athenian citizen, he could have not been present at the Areoos Pagos.
One must be really stubborn to not see tha the Areos Pagos was not a random court of law that anyone could speak at. It only tried murderers and serious offenders. Paul either committed murder, pederasty or rape, otherwise he was never at the Areos Pagos. When you're in front of a handful of people, you don't say "men of Athens", you say something else. Men of Athens implies that you have a great crowd. That was not possible at Areos Pagos. It was possible in the Agora but then it means he did not go to the Areos Pagos which is what is said he did.
EDIT: Link in English here: http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_areopagus?page=all&greekEncoding=
And some more links:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/greekcrimpro.html
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...Bg#v=onepage&q=socrates trial heliaia&f=false
Heliaia (Ηλιαία)... the appropriate court for impiety...
From a book, since you like books
http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/athlit02/lecture5.1.htm
http://www.sgt.gr/uploads/Socrates_Anagnostopoulos_eng.pdf
According to Plato it was Heliaia... but you said Plato makes no such mention....
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...BQ#v=onepage&q=socrates trial heliaia&f=false
...he was put on trial, at the Heliaia... [another book btw, gotta love books]
As I said, it's common knowledge. You're either too stubborn as a person, a devout Christian or both. I can't explain your opposition to facts otherwise.
http://www.ime.gr/chronos/04/gr/society/312trad_courts.html
Solon reforms Athenian law in the early 6th century BC and gives judicial power to Heliaia. In the classical era, all judicial power was handed to Heliaia and the parliament of 500 was in charge of serious crimes but not lethal (causes of serious injuries etc)
Draco issued a new type of judges, the efetes("appealers") who were in charge of various trials and some murder cases that didn't make the Areos Pagos.
The Areos Pagos stopped being the general Athenian court of law in the early 6th century and had never gotten its power ever since. Everything other than murder and the other things I mentioned was handled by other courts of law
And to my surprise, from a school book http://www.xsap.gr/76_138ds_xsap/Sxoleio/drastiriotites/arxaia_athina.files/areios_pagos.pdf
Essentially:
1) Ancient court of law
2) 752 BC they took over power of Athens when the kingdom fell
3) Solon in 592BC restricts their power
4) They were pissed by this so Solon allowed them to also judge cases of treason, looting of public property, mutiny, bribes, sacrilege and scamming the public.
5) During the reign of Peisistratos (546-510BC) they are revoked of all their powers and had returned to their original purpose which was to only judge murder cases.
6) They took over Athens between 479BC and 462BC.
7) In 462BC, Ephialtes abolished their power and instated the Ecclesia, the parliament of the 500 and Heliaia courts of law as the judicial power of Athens while Areos Pagos was only used for murder cases.
8) Socrates is tried somewhere at this point.
9) 344BC, Democritus gives Areos Pagos the power to validate court decisions regarding Athenian citizens.
So when Socrates was tried, the Areos Pagos only tried murder cases and had no real power over Athens. Everything, even contemporary sources that mention it by word, suggest that he was tried at Heliaia.
When Paul came to Athens, the Areos Pagos still only tried murder cases and it only had an effect on appeals by Athenian citizens. Since the story does not involve Paul being a witness to an Athenian and since he was not an Athenian citizen, he could have not been present at the Areoos Pagos.
One must be really stubborn to not see tha the Areos Pagos was not a random court of law that anyone could speak at. It only tried murderers and serious offenders. Paul either committed murder, pederasty or rape, otherwise he was never at the Areos Pagos. When you're in front of a handful of people, you don't say "men of Athens", you say something else. Men of Athens implies that you have a great crowd. That was not possible at Areos Pagos. It was possible in the Agora but then it means he did not go to the Areos Pagos which is what is said he did.
EDIT: Link in English here: http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_areopagus?page=all&greekEncoding=
It is also clear from that link that there was no jury at the Aereos Pagos. So how could 500 people vote on Socrates' life?
And some more links:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/greekcrimpro.html
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...Bg#v=onepage&q=socrates trial heliaia&f=false
Heliaia (Ηλιαία)... the appropriate court for impiety...
From a book, since you like books
http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/athlit02/lecture5.1.htm
http://www.sgt.gr/uploads/Socrates_Anagnostopoulos_eng.pdf
According to Plato it was Heliaia... but you said Plato makes no such mention....
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...BQ#v=onepage&q=socrates trial heliaia&f=false
...he was put on trial, at the Heliaia... [another book btw, gotta love books]
As I said, it's common knowledge. You're either too stubborn as a person, a devout Christian or both. I can't explain your opposition to facts otherwise.
Last edited:
Random court of law? Who said it was a random court of law?
You seem to be arguing with someone else.
My statement is that the Areopagus was the court for religious offenses. It always was and remained so. Murder (intentional homicide) was a religious offense. Manslaughter (unintentional homicide) is not a religious offense and was tried elsewhere.
Areopagus never tried "serious offenses", only religious ones. It was not a supreme court - it never had appellate jurisdiction. It's jurisdiction was always religious cases , and that was untouched by the mid-5th C. reforms of Ephialtes & Pericles. The reforms only affected its powers of magisterial and fiscal oversight (which would include official corruption, audits, etc.), which were transferred to other courts. But its jurisdiction on religious offenses remained.
To say that Socrates "definitely" tried in the Heliaia is a conjecture. It is not stated in contemporary sources. And no amount internet babble is going to change that.
What is stated is the sources is that Socrates's case was registered with the basil archon, in the royal stoa (the actual offices of the Council of Areopagus). That is where religious cases are started, which, after a preliminary review, are either kicked up to the Areopagus (if the review concludes it is indeed religious) or reassigned to another venue (if not). That the basil archon was presiding over the trial suggests the Socrates case was conducted on the Areopagus. I can't conclude that definitely, because the sources aren't definite. But it seems likely.
So please don't condescend. I actually know a thing or two about Athenian law.
Paul being brought to the Areopagus would be perfectly consistent, as he was on religious charges.
Once again, you keep ignoring the facts and presenting an alternate reality. Areopagus was not a court for religious offenses. It did not have jurors, it was a place were the accused would speak to a handful of judges
The Royal Stoa was the place were ALL cases were brought to. It was part of the 'Heliaia'.
Demosthenes has a thorough analysis of this. Areos Pagos ONLY handled cases of murder, other offenses that were considered similar and in some cases, arson and other sorts of vandalism to public (usually) property. Impiety was a matter of the Heliaia and it required a large jury.
There would be no Epicureans or Stoics at the Areos Pagos. At the agora, yes. But then he'd be tried and executed for impiety. Neither happened.
And as for his speech, he claimed that Atheninans were superstituous yet he was claiming to be the voice of god.
The only case I've heard by Christians to prove that this actually did occur is that Paul went to the Areos Pagos to apply for the creation of a Christian temple, as it was the alleged juristiction of the Areos Pagos. This was obviously not the case since that was not within its juristiction and there were already half a dozen temples for non-Hellenes and there was no way someone could ask the Areos Pagos to allow a new religion. This had to be done through the Roman prefect.
The Royal Stoa was the place were ALL cases were brought to. It was part of the 'Heliaia'.
Demosthenes has a thorough analysis of this. Areos Pagos ONLY handled cases of murder, other offenses that were considered similar and in some cases, arson and other sorts of vandalism to public (usually) property. Impiety was a matter of the Heliaia and it required a large jury.
There would be no Epicureans or Stoics at the Areos Pagos. At the agora, yes. But then he'd be tried and executed for impiety. Neither happened.
And as for his speech, he claimed that Atheninans were superstituous yet he was claiming to be the voice of god.
The only case I've heard by Christians to prove that this actually did occur is that Paul went to the Areos Pagos to apply for the creation of a Christian temple, as it was the alleged juristiction of the Areos Pagos. This was obviously not the case since that was not within its juristiction and there were already half a dozen temples for non-Hellenes and there was no way someone could ask the Areos Pagos to allow a new religion. This had to be done through the Roman prefect.
A handful of judges? Apparently you're confused. There were a dozen archons at any moment in time (elected yearly), but the council of Areopagus consisted of all living ex-archons. Membership of the Council of Areopagus averaged 150-200. It is a sizeable jury.
Nope. Cases were registered with any magistrate. You only went to the royal stoa if you wanted to register cases with the royal archon, i.e. if you thought the case fell under his jurisdiction.
Helaia was just a venue. Any magistrate could use it for whatever case was brought to him.
Areopagus is religious. It handles murder because (intentional) murder is a religious offense. It can handle arson & vandalism if there is sacrilege involved (e.g. defacing of temples).
It doesn't handle non-intentional homicide or conventional arson & vandalism. Those are serious offenses, but not being religious in nature, are outside its jurisdiction and he is obliged to kick it to another court (usually the Palladion or Delphinum, where your ephetes preside).
It is possible that Helaia dealt with impiety cases if the impiety case was brought before another magistrate and he decided to go with it (as far as I know, he is not obligated to kick it to the royal archon). But if an impiety case is brought to the royal archon, he has jurisdiction and can retain it and carry it to the Areopagus.
I'm not confused at all. The council was large, the judges were 9. The council did not reside at the rock, that was a place of trial. They only gathered there in order to vote on serious issues. There would be no guests during this time. Paul spoke while on the rock('pagos'). Hence, he was on trial and faced less than 10 men. Thus, he was accused of murder most likely, pederasty or arson. By what we have, none of what he's saying is related to a trial defense.
And the term "religious" doesn't mean what you would think it does. Not all 'religious' incidents were sent to the Areos Pagos, only the very severe ones which as you said includes defacing temples and that kind of stuff. Some random dude preaching about a Jewish demigod and his father would fall under the entertainment category rather than an act of crime or sacrilege.
The Areopagus ceased having the role you're implying it had 200 years before Socrates' trial and around 700 years before Paul's alleged perennial visit.
Interesting fact: Areos Pagos' nickname was "the murderers' rock".
And the term "religious" doesn't mean what you would think it does. Not all 'religious' incidents were sent to the Areos Pagos, only the very severe ones which as you said includes defacing temples and that kind of stuff. Some random dude preaching about a Jewish demigod and his father would fall under the entertainment category rather than an act of crime or sacrilege.
The Areopagus ceased having the role you're implying it had 200 years before Socrates' trial and around 700 years before Paul's alleged perennial visit.
Interesting fact: Areos Pagos' nickname was "the murderers' rock".
You are confused. 9 is the number of yearly archons - the archon eponymous, the archon basileus, the polemarch and the six timothetes - which would be admitted, at the end of their one year term, to join the Council with the rest. Trials of the Council were before the entire Council (acc. to Aristotle).
*shrug* Religious means religious. Not sure what you mean by "serious". Religion was taken seriously. And trying to introduce a new god in Athens is about as serious as serious gets.
What you may say is that murder wasn't serious - at least, it is not really serious religious business, and shouldn't have been at the Areopagus. And that is true - there were repeated attempts in Athens to remove its jurisdiction and bring murder to the popular courts. Indeed, it has been speculated that Aeschylus's underlying motive was a propaganda push to emphasize murder as a religious offense and retain it in the Areopagus.
Only the most major ones. Most of them were handled by the 9 and there would be some supervisors on occasion, if the decision would be made instantly.
Fact: Paul was preaching to JEWS. He was not preaching at Athenians. They were mocking him. They did not take him seriously. It wasn't considered to be a new god. It was the Judaic god. He was known then since there were many Jews in Athens already and they even had their (secret?) synagogues. Paul was preaching the birth and life of Jesus as the son of that god. It was not a new god or a new religion or anything. The Athenians were not concerned about this and it wasn't their concern in the first place. That was the prefect's job.
I know nothing about Athenian law, and make no pretense of commenting on that issue. We do know, however, that Paul was preaching to Greeks in Greece; we know this because we have letters from Paul to his various churches in Greece, most of whose congregants (as indicated by both their names and their concerns) were Greek. Indeed, one of the Christians mentioned in Romans is Erastus, the city treasurer in Corinth (and thus presumably an individual of reasonably high rank). While the authorship of some of the Pauline letters is disputed, Romans (along with several others relevant to Greece) is unanimously considered to be authentic by scholars.
Wasn't Paul's whole raison d'être to try to make Christianity less Jewish and more appealing to the Romans and Greeks? Or maybe I'm missing something here.
Not quite sure what you mean.
There were other magistrates, yes. But, as far as I know, only those nine entered the Council of Areopagus at the end of their terms. They're just the annual intake.
But that's all they had in common. The nine otherwise had distinct functions, and did not participate together in anything or form any kind of collective board.
The Council of Areopagus was a cumulative council. It took nine new members every year, who went on to serve on the council for the remainder of their lives. So over time it added up (minus deaths) to a rather large Council of around 200 or so. And it was the Council as a whole, not the annual nine, who served as collective judges/juries on the Areopagus.
So you say. And that very well may be. But just because you know something, now, in retrospect, doesn't mean everyone else at the time did. You cannot assume the city authorities could have guessed what the "facts" were. All they hear is that there's a stranger in town peddling strange religion. And introducing new gods is a serious offense in Athens. The Areopagus have reason - indeed, the duty - to inquire who this fellow is and what he is up to. It is part of its remit. Establishing what the "facts" are is what such trials set out to do.
There's nothing inconsistent in any of this. Nor unusual. It is a fair bet such investigations were pretty routine.