[O]ne can even argue—if we didn’t have the Gospels and Acts imagining a 30s AD date for the religion’s origin, or if we decided to reject that as fiction—that Paul’s letters are more or at least as congruous with the Hasmonean date for the origins of Christianity rather than the Roman, i.e. Paul wrote in the 50s BC, not AD.
[...]
one argument for it is that it would make more sense of Paul’s telling us Aretas had a governor occupying or embargoing Damascus he had to flee from (2 Cor. 11:32-33). In the AD scenario, that requires supposing that incident happened during the Aretas-Judean conflict in 36-37 AD. No other date fits. Though we have no explicit account of Aretas occupying or embargoing Damascus in that war (it’s plausible given what we know, but not directly attested). However, some scholars suggest Paul means by ethnarch in that passage a diplomatic prefect, i.e. the marshal of a “Nabataean Quarter” of Damascus. Though we have no evidence for that being a thing either (though again it is nevertheless also plausible). By contrast, if Paul meant an incident in the 70s or 60s BC, he would have meant Aretas III rather than Aretas IV, who did in fact rule Damascus from 85 to 72 BC.
That this would perfectly align Paul’s entire chronology and ministry with the Talmudic Jesus executed in the 70s BC is indeed intriguing. But alas, this can only be speculated. There isn’t enough evidence to argue it’s probable. Meanwhile the same remarkable coincidence exists between Paul having had to dodge Aretas’s officials in 36, and the date our Gospels and Acts imply for the origin of the religion. The agreement is equally apposite.
[O]ne can even argue—if we didn’t have the Gospels and Acts imagining a 30s AD date for the religion’s origin, or if we decided to reject that as fiction—that Paul’s letters are more or at least as congruous with the Hasmonean date for the origins of Christianity rather than the Roman, i.e. Paul wrote in the 50s BC, not AD.
[...]
one argument for it is that it would make more sense of Paul’s telling us Aretas had a governor occupying or embargoing Damascus he had to flee from (2 Cor. 11:32-33). In the AD scenario, that requires supposing that incident happened during the Aretas-Judean conflict in 36-37 AD. No other date fits. Though we have no explicit account of Aretas occupying or embargoing Damascus in that war (it’s plausible given what we know, but not directly attested). However, some scholars suggest Paul means by ethnarch in that passage a diplomatic prefect, i.e. the marshal of a “Nabataean Quarter” of Damascus. Though we have no evidence for that being a thing either (though again it is nevertheless also plausible). By contrast, if Paul meant an incident in the 70s or 60s BC, he would have meant Aretas III rather than Aretas IV, who did in fact rule Damascus from 85 to 72 BC.
That this would perfectly align Paul’s entire chronology and ministry with the Talmudic Jesus executed in the 70s BC is indeed intriguing. But alas, this can only be speculated. There isn’t enough evidence to argue it’s probable. Meanwhile the same remarkable coincidence exists between Paul having had to dodge Aretas’s officials in 36, and the date our Gospels and Acts imply for the origin of the religion. The agreement is equally apposite.
Sa, your other thread on Nomen Sacrum is quite interesting. But I'm struggling to identify the appropriate material to use on this subject. Is there any scholarship that clearly identifies the relevant material? What manuscripts exist from prior to the 5th century?
What's the problem with Philo's work? Are you suggesting that in the existing manuscripts, which I assume come from later dates, that his original use of ΙΣ has been lost due to scribal modification?
