Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 8:46 pm
I have talked about FACTS and logical implications from FACTS.
No trace of interpretation.
Greg Doudna is using 2 Cor.11.32 to rewrite Nabataean history.
Now I want to be clear here. From the Nabataean evidence, we have a queen and we know her name. By inference we also have a king with her and we have plausibility that it could be Aretas V but we do not know that from the Nabataean evidence alone.Confirmation that that king was Aretas V comes from 2 Corinthians 11, which supplies the name and completes the argument.
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.
Except for 3 years from 72 - 69 BCE.
Already mentioned in earlier post..
Natabaean history has Aretas II ruling Damascus. (85 b.c. to 72 b.c. and from 69 b.c. to around 63/62 b.c.)
The ruler of Damascus between 72 b.c. and 69 b.c. was Tigranes II.
Nabataean rule of Damascus was interrupted in 72 BCE by a successful siege led by the Armenian king Tigranes II. Armenian rule of the city ended in 69 BCE when Tigranes' forces were pulled out to deal with a Roman attack on the Armenian capital, allowing Aretas to re-take the city.
