Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket case

[spin]

and the Aretas in it is #III.

It is the most likely reading of the facts.

How do you reconcile these two elements?

I said in an earlier post "beats me". Do I need to get even more repetitive?

I'm also unable to make sense of your position. Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that your position MUST BE that since it is 'most likely' that the Aretas in 2 Cor is Aretas III, the passage 'most likely' cannot have been authentic to Paul, since Paul didn't live at that time? Doesn't that mean NOT that you aren't taking a position, but that in fact you ARE taking the position that the passage is 'most likely' an interpolation?

I've already referred to this: is the mention of Lysanias in Lk 3:1 an interpolation? The reference is obviously a blunder, but is it an interpolation? Can you say? Editors and writers can make blunders or make things up (which they foul up).

[stephan happy huller]

I don't know why everyone is so afraid to speak about 'interpolation.' I think it is more embarrassing to argue for an immaculate text moving through time like the onyx monolith in 2001.



Is it that y'all lack imagination? No unfortunately. I think you like arguing and it is more manly to argue without the aid of the 'interpolation' argument. I've known some whores who have been handled less than the lines in the Pauline letters and the surviving gospels. I argue for at least two layers of corruption (Polycarp, Irenaeus and likely even a third or even a fourth).

[spin]

I don't know why everyone is so afraid to speak about 'interpolation.' I think it is more embarrassing to argue for an immaculate text moving through time like the onyx monolith in 2001.

Woah there, boy. I'm happy to talk about interpolations when I think there is good textual evidence for them. Nobody can deny me of that. But here the best indicator is as Solo indicated that it appears as though tacked on at the end of the chapter, not in itself very persuasive. So, it could be an interpolation, but then again... who knows? Why not face the fact that it could be a bludner.

[stephan happy huller]

Nah. I know these arguments aren't very convincing to the old men who frequent this forum but the sudden introduction of biographical information is suspicious. Doesn't anyone notice that he says two things after slighting Peter and the rest of the apostles now. The first is that he 'definitely' was abused more than the other apostles. This is open and out front. But the supposition is that Christians always thought that it was a great thing to get beaten. But Clement makes clear that Jesus said that one should avoid persecutions and run away. Now leaving aside the question of whether Paul had a gospel or knew the words of Jesus, why is it that this declaration is clear and open but the one that follows - i.e. that Paul went up to heaven is so muted? We can't get Paul to even admit now that he actually was the 'man' who went up to Paradise.

The text was changed. It's ridiculous. How can Paul be explicit about having the shit kicked out of him but evasive about the very thing that helps prove the original proposition in chapter 11?

Don't any of you old timers ever stop to consider which would actually make Paul a superior APOSTLE. I don't think you understand that apostle was a pre-existent title. It meant 'one like Moses.' When the fuck did Moses get his beaten in? Your all going round and round in your white bullshit. The bottom line is that if you are arguing who is the better apostle - whether you define this by the Greek 'ambassador' or the more like Aramaic 'spokesman' - WHAT THE FUCK DOES GETTING BEATEN UP HAVE TO DO WITH BEING AN APOSTLE or escaping from an ethnarch for that matter?

It's only when you stop and look at the context of the passage as a whole that you see that Paul was originally say: I am better than Peter because he only went to the third heaven and I went 'all the way' to Paradise. When he says that it is forbidden a man to speak these things he is assuming of course that he is no longer a man because he saw the face of God and was transformed.

But you goes going on and on with this nonsense. The passage is fake because it interrupts the key idea - how was Paul a better spokesman (= one like Moses) than Peter. It's just because white people were raised with a set of assumptions - a circular argument - about what an 'apostle' is. Indeed you define the term by false passages like this. Apostle means spokesman and Moses was the first spokesman, the one Peter and Paul were imitating.

[stephan happy huller]

Here old people. Learn something before you die. Here is something to get your inherited outside of your inherited cultural assumptions:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zdam8_ ... es&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=pzo6KA ... es&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ddLqKD ... es&f=false

[spin]

Nah. I know these arguments aren't very convincing to the old men who frequent this forum but the sudden introduction of biographical information is suspicious.

Thing is, it's not sudden if you take it as a specific illustration of the sort of hardship our poor apostle has had to suffer for his faith. I think there are much stronger cases for interpolation elsewhere. Nevertheless, it could be an interpolation, though one certainly cannot depend on it.

Doesn't anyone notice that he says two things after slighting Peter and the rest of the apostles now. The first is that he 'definitely' was abused more than the other apostles. This is open and out front. But the supposition is that Christians always thought that it was a great thing to get beaten. But Clement makes clear that Jesus said that one should avoid persecutions and run away. Now leaving aside the question of whether Paul had a gospel or knew the words of Jesus, why is it that this declaration is clear and open but the one that follows - i.e. that Paul went up to heaven is so muted? We can't get Paul to even admit now that he actually was the 'man' who went up to Paradise.

The text was changed. It's ridiculous. How can Paul be explicit about having the shit kicked out of him but evasive about the very thing that helps prove the original proposition in chapter 11?

Don't any of you old timers ever stop to consider which would actually make Paul a superior APOSTLE. I don't think you understand that apostle was a pre-existent title. It meant 'one like Moses.' When the fuck did Moses get his beaten in? Your all going round and round in your white bullshit. The bottom line is that if you are arguing who is the better apostle - whether you define this by the Greek 'ambassador' or the more like Aramaic 'spokesman' - WHAT THE FUCK DOES GETTING BEATEN UP HAVE TO DO WITH BEING AN APOSTLE or escaping from an ethnarch for that matter?

As I said above, it's a specifically related to the stuff in 11:23-27, how he escaped peril through the awkward means of a basket. (I still can't help the thought that the basket could have been ταρσος (it's not the word used in the passage) and linked to the hometown attributed to him in Acts.)

It's only when you stop and look at the context of the passage as a whole that you see that Paul was originally say: I am better than Peter because he only went to the third heaven and I went 'all the way' to Paradise. When he says that it is forbidden a man to speak these things he is assuming of course that he is no longer a man because he saw the face of God and was transformed.

But you goes going on and on with this nonsense. The passage is fake because it interrupts the key idea - how was Paul a better spokesman (= one like Moses) than Peter. It's just because white people were raised with a set of assumptions - a circular argument - about what an 'apostle' is. Indeed you define the term by false passages like this. Apostle means spokesman and Moses was the first spokesman, the one Peter and Paul were imitating.

The list of generalized hardships would establish Paul's superiority, so it doesn't say much for 11:32-33 being an interpolation. That the whole passage is a dialogue with the rising apostolic claims would be more convincing for interpolation. The contrast between Paul and Cephas, as seen in Gal 2:7-8 (which is quite messed up and has good claims of being an interpolation), suggests a later context than that letter.

[stephan happy huller]

My point was only that 2 Cor 11:32 sits in the middle of a sectioned filled with deliberate clutter

[stephan happy huller]

The letter is too long also. We are used to the idea of a sixteen chapter letter. I've never seen anything like this in antiquity. Maybe someone can inform me of a parallel phenomenon. The point then is that this is the original letter on Catholic steroids.

[TedM]

I'm also unable to make sense of your position. Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that your position MUST BE that since it is 'most likely' that the Aretas in 2 Cor is Aretas III, the passage 'most likely' cannot have been authentic to Paul, since Paul didn't live at that time? Doesn't that mean NOT that you aren't taking a position, but that in fact you ARE taking the position that the passage is 'most likely' an interpolation?

I've already referred to this: is the mention of Lysanias in Lk 3:1 an interpolation? The reference is obviously a blunder, but is it an interpolation? Can you say? Editors and writers can make blunders or make things up (which they foul up).

What part is the blunder? The mention of Aretas? The mention of the ethnarch? If both are questionable, at what point does a 'blunder' by someone other than the original author have to be seen as 'made up', and called a true 'interpolation'?

[TedM]

Now leaving aside the question of whether Paul had a gospel or knew the words of Jesus, why is it that this declaration is clear and open but the one that follows - i.e. that Paul went up to heaven is so muted?

The text provides an answer:

heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.

Don't any of you old timers ever stop to consider which would actually make Paul a superior APOSTLE.

The issue really wasn't the semantics of the word 'apostle'--that's a side concern. The primary concern was about Paul's credibility with the Corinthians, as it is clear from the letters that they were questioning it, prompted by their dealings with these other apostles.

It's only when you stop and look at the context of the passage as a whole that you see that Paul was originally say: I am better than Peter because he only went to the third heaven and I went 'all the way' to Paradise. When he says that it is forbidden a man to speak these things he is assuming of course that he is no longer a man because he saw the face of God and was transformed.

There appears to be ZERO support in the passage for the claim that he was comparing himself specifically to Peter, that Peter went to the third heaven, that Paul went to a different place, and that Paul felt he no longer was a 'man', but was on some higher level. Where are you getting any of these concepts from the passage?

For all the time you spend posting on these forums and for as direct as you sometimes are in your tone, you seem to like to beat around the bush when it comes to providing support for ideas you present for the first time on any given thread. It may be because you think everyone already knows your sources or has read your previous related comments on some other thread, but I have no clue as to where you are getting these opinions about the passage that are not supported at all by the passage. Please try to have the other forum members in mind when you make claims that seem to come from out of left field and don't just post a few quick links that you think they should go and read because you don't have the time to spell out the actual argument. IF I haven't been clear enough yet, let me state it more clearly: It's irritating, and it appears to come from a position of smug arrogance. If that's not the case, then you surely would like to address the problem, no?