Exactly. In the 1st century BCE.maryhelena wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 4:36 amAlready mentioned in earlier post..lclapshaw wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 4:23 amExcept for 3 years from 72 - 69 BCE.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 10:55 pmGreg Doudna is using 2 Cor.11.32 to rewrite Nabataean history.
2 Cor. 11.32 is being used as 'confirmation' for the existence of Aretas V.
A NT Christian origin story is being used, being interpreted, as 'confirmation' of an Aretas V. Without an interpretation of 2 Cor.11.32 Greg has no way to support his theory of an Aretas V. By all means suggest the 'plausibility' that there 'could be' an Aretas V - but 2 Cor. 11.32 has it's own problems with historicity of Paul in Damascus and is thus an unstable base for 'confirmation' for secular Natabaean history.
If historical evidence turns up tomorrow that Aretas V was king of the Nabataeans in 69-70 CE - and that he controlled Damascus - well then, Greg has hit the jackpot and is then able to interpret 2 Cor. 11.32 as a reference to this Aretas V. Until such a time - the only Natabaean Aretas that controlled Damascus was Aretas III.
The ruler of Damascus between 72 b.c. and 69 b.c. was Tigranes II.
So - 'the only Natabaean Aretas that controlled Damascus was Aretas III'....
Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.