Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

That's the stupidest argument yet. "Do we know that he wasn't in charge of Damascus?" There is no evidence to support that. Only a religious zealot asks history to disprove the Bible. Tell me how you really feel Stephan. Spin said that the Nabataeans controlled the city 'briefly' before 6...

The one involving a foreign power attacking a Roman client. Rome had a long history of dealing with foreign interference. With few exceptions the result was dire for the foreign power. The death of Tiberius meant a transition of power that was one of those junctures when strife can arise, so Vitell...

Yes, Stephan. That's the question I asked: If you assume both stories are fiction and no one even talked about it for 300 years, WHY do both stores exist in the first place with different details? IF you allow for both being accurate you can reconcile them with little difficulty based on reasonable ...

It's still a fantasy. It's inferred directly from 2 Corinthians, not from any other source. I would use the term 'reasonable hypothesis'. What Murphy has done is show that there is a basis for the 2 Corin reference to be historical: Client kings existed under Caligula, and Caligula had motive to re...

Maybe reading this paraphrase from Murphy J O'Conners' ( Paul: A Critical Life ) will provoke a sheepish grin? . . . Client Kingdom's, such as an alleged rule of Damascus by the Nabataean's was forbidden by the emperor Tiberius. When Tiberius died in 37A.D., Caligula reinstated client kings such as...

While Peter sees this as a 'romantic' story, how else might one who is being sought by the authorities have escaped? Seems to me that there are some reasonable explanations here that fit the accounts we have. Ted, perhaps a 'romantic story' has more going for it than futile attempts to ascribe hist...

In the year 37, Roman Emperor Caligula transferred Damascus to Nabataean control by decree. The Nabataean king Aretas IV Philopatris ruled Damascus from his capital Petra[/b]. However, around the year 106, Nabataea was conquered by the Romans, and Damascus returned to Roman control. Is this not acc...

The Damascus King Aretas reference is very important in the sense that it is the only possibly historically testable reference 'Paul' makes in his 'authentic' epistles. Another point of contact between the Pauline letters and the pre-70 AD period occurs in 2 Cor 12:31-33, which has the passage about...

Paulus is not a real name, just like Cephas is not a real name; both are common nouns unattested as actual names before Christianity. The Pauline epistles themselves don't contain the name Saul. I don't know why you accept at face value the interpretation of Acts that the real name of Paul is Saul....

If I understand the argument, it is that it would be unlikely that someone pretending to forge works from Paul would talk about taking up a collection for the believers in Jerusalem. Is that the argument? If so, I don't understand it. If Jerusalem was desolate at 70AD, wouldn't a forgerer have known...