arnoldo wrote:Just because there are conflicting hypothesis does not mean that Aretas never had control to any degree of Damascus.
It means that at least three of them are wrong.
arnoldo wrote:By way of analogy, currently there are many conflicting hypothesis on how life originated on earth ranging from Clay Hypothesis to the Soup Theory. Despite these conflicting theories of abiogenesis life did arise on earth. How can you be so sure that Aretas never had control of Damascus to any degree for however a short period of time?
Umm, it was, as part of Philip's territory, a direct Roman possession after the death of Philip and before Caligula gave it to Agrippa I. Caligula didn't give it to both Agrippa and Aretas, nor did Aretas take it from the Romans.
Ok, without archaelogical evidence, there is no definite proof that Aretas was involved in Damascus in any way. In contrast, Paul writes in Romans 16:23 the following concerning a treasurer in Corinth called Erastus.
Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus, greet you.
. . and in this case we do have archaelogical evidence of Erastus.
Translation: Erastus...bore the expense of this pavement.
http://www.utexas.edu/research/pasp/cor ... racts.html
The Wrong Erastus: Status, Wealth, and Paul's Churches
Steven Friesen
In 1929 a damaged inscription was discovered near the theater in Corinth which mentioned an aedile by the name of Erastus. Since then, many New Testament scholars have identified this aedile Erastus with an oikonomos named Erastus who sent greetings from Corinth in Paul's letter to the Romans (16:23). This identification allowed scholars to claim that the Corinthian churches had members of higher status than previous reconstructions allowed. And since most of our information about Pauline believers comes from the letters to Corinth, the higher status model from Corinth influenced our understanding of the churches in other cities as well. Thus the Erastus inscription soon became a linchpin in 20th century reconstructions of the social status of Pauline Christianity. Unfortunately, the inscription was incorrectly published and the identification of the two Erastus references is wrong. This paper corrects the archaeological record about the aedile named Erastus, reassesses what we can know about the oikonomos named Erastus, and lays out the implications for our understanding of the social history of the Pauline churches.
Friesen himself could of course be wrong. The question is what we know, as distinct from what we speculate.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
http://www.utexas.edu/research/pasp/cor ... racts.html
The Wrong Erastus: Status, Wealth, and Paul's Churches
Steven Friesen
In 1929 a damaged inscription was discovered near the theater in Corinth which mentioned an aedile by the name of Erastus. Since then, many New Testament scholars have identified this aedile Erastus with an oikonomos named Erastus who sent greetings from Corinth in Paul's letter to the Romans (16:23). This identification allowed scholars to claim that the Corinthian churches had members of higher status than previous reconstructions allowed. And since most of our information about Pauline believers comes from the letters to Corinth, the higher status model from Corinth influenced our understanding of the churches in other cities as well. Thus the Erastus inscription soon became a linchpin in 20th century reconstructions of the social status of Pauline Christianity. Unfortunately, the inscription was incorrectly published and the identification of the two Erastus references is wrong. This paper corrects the archaeological record about the aedile named Erastus, reassesses what we can know about the oikonomos named Erastus, and lays out the implications for our understanding of the social history of the Pauline churches.
Friesen himself could of course be wrong. The question is what we know, as distinct from what we speculate.
Jerome Murphy-O'Connor makes the point that Erastus was not an aedile (who was required to be a Roman citizen); however he was an oikonomos (a lesser rank of an aedile) and most likely a freedman (ex-slave).
http://www.utexas.edu/research/pasp/cor ... racts.html
The Wrong Erastus: Status, Wealth, and Paul's Churches
Steven Friesen
In 1929 a damaged inscription was discovered near the theater in Corinth which mentioned an aedile by the name of Erastus. Since then, many New Testament scholars have identified this aedile Erastus with an oikonomos named Erastus who sent greetings from Corinth in Paul's letter to the Romans (16:23). This identification allowed scholars to claim that the Corinthian churches had members of higher status than previous reconstructions allowed. And since most of our information about Pauline believers comes from the letters to Corinth, the higher status model from Corinth influenced our understanding of the churches in other cities as well. Thus the Erastus inscription soon became a linchpin in 20th century reconstructions of the social status of Pauline Christianity. Unfortunately, the inscription was incorrectly published and the identification of the two Erastus references is wrong. This paper corrects the archaeological record about the aedile named Erastus, reassesses what we can know about the oikonomos named Erastus, and lays out the implications for our understanding of the social history of the Pauline churches.
Friesen himself could of course be wrong. The question is what we know, as distinct from what we speculate.
Jerome Murphy-O'Connor makes the point that Erastus was not an aedile (who was required to be a Roman citizen); however he was an oikonomos (a lesser rank of an aedile) and most likely a freedman (ex-slave).
So what? (And please do specify which "Erastus" is the subject here, the letter or the inscription. Identity cannot be assumed.)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
http://www.utexas.edu/research/pasp/cor ... racts.html
The Wrong Erastus: Status, Wealth, and Paul's Churches
Steven Friesen
In 1929 a damaged inscription was discovered near the theater in Corinth which mentioned an aedile by the name of Erastus. Since then, many New Testament scholars have identified this aedile Erastus with an oikonomos named Erastus who sent greetings from Corinth in Paul's letter to the Romans (16:23). This identification allowed scholars to claim that the Corinthian churches had members of higher status than previous reconstructions allowed. And since most of our information about Pauline believers comes from the letters to Corinth, the higher status model from Corinth influenced our understanding of the churches in other cities as well. Thus the Erastus inscription soon became a linchpin in 20th century reconstructions of the social status of Pauline Christianity. Unfortunately, the inscription was incorrectly published and the identification of the two Erastus references is wrong. This paper corrects the archaeological record about the aedile named Erastus, reassesses what we can know about the oikonomos named Erastus, and lays out the implications for our understanding of the social history of the Pauline churches.
Friesen himself could of course be wrong. The question is what we know, as distinct from what we speculate.
Jerome Murphy-O'Connor makes the point that Erastus was not an aedile (who was required to be a Roman citizen); however he was an oikonomos (a lesser rank of an aedile) and most likely a freedman (ex-slave).
So what? (And please do specify which "Erastus" is the subject here, the letter or the inscription. Identity cannot be assumed.)
The subject is both the inscription of "Erastus" and the reference of "Erastus" in Roman 16:23. I also should've added that Erastus at the time of Roman 16:23 was a oikonomos and later, at the time of the inscription, rose in rank to become an aedile according to Jerome Murph-O'Conner.
But if we can still see the inscription and if the inscription has something to do with the NT why couldn't someone in the second century have seen it and used it as a basis for his addition to the original letter in the Marcionite canon (Origen makes clear chapter 16 not in the Marcionite canon).
arnoldo wrote:
Jerome Murphy-O'Connor makes the point that Erastus was not an aedile (who was required to be a Roman citizen); however he was an oikonomos (a lesser rank of an aedile) and most likely a freedman (ex-slave).
So what? (And please do specify which "Erastus" is the subject here, the letter or the inscription. Identity cannot be assumed.)
The subject is both the inscription of "Erastus" and the reference of "Erastus" in Roman 16:23. I also should've added that Erastus at the time of Roman 16:23 was a oikonomos and later, at the time of the inscription, rose in rank to become an aedile according to Jerome Murph-O'Conner.
So we have three different hypotheses here.
(1) Erastus (Rom. 16:23) is said to be an oikonomos. Erastus (inscription) is an aedile. They are not the same person.
(2) Erastus (Rom. 16:23) is said to be an oikonomos. Erastus (inscription) is an aedile. They are the same person, but the reference in Rom. 16:23 is an unhistorical embellishment on an otherwise historical character.
(3) Erastus (Rom. 16:23) is said to be an oikonomos. Erastus (inscription) is an aedile. They are the same person, this person was promoted in rank, and this person was referenced here by Paul in the epistle to the Romans.
What makes you think any of these hypotheses is better than each of the other two? Please don't assume.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
