Aretas V

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9077
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Aretas V

Post by Giuseppe »

Josephus mentions presence of Nabatean troops in help of Vespasian and his army in Damascus.

Josephus mentions Saul, a Herodian gangster.

The detail about Aretas/Damascus in 2 Corynthians is probably not interpolated: why should a forger invent a such enigmatic detail?
maryhelena
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Aretas V

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 1:42 am
The detail about Aretas/Damascus in 2 Corynthians is probably not interpolated: why should a forger invent a such enigmatic detail?
I've not mentioned anything about the passage in question being 'interpolated'.

What I do keep mentioning is that according to Nabataean history Aretas III controlled Damascus. (85 b.c. to 72 b.c. and from 69 b.c. to around 63/62 b.c.)

Josephus makes no mention of an Aretas V in the late 60s c.e. - let alone one controlling Damascus.

It's a pity that spin is not around to have his say on the assumed Aretas V......methinks spin would have a lot to say.... ;)

“Where art thou” spin...?
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9077
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Aretas V

Post by Giuseppe »

We have strong reasons to assume presence of Nabatean troops in Damascus during the First Jewish Revolt.

We don't have reasons at all to assume an Aretas IV in Damascus.

Aretas III, even if he had Damascus, is a priori excluded because there is no independent evidence of a Paul contemporary of Aretas III.

We have independent evidence of a Paul active during the First Jewish Revolt.
  • That in Acts Paul is named Saul could be a mere coincidence
  • That Josephus talks about a member of the Herodian family named "Saulus," could be a mere coincidence
  • That Paul speaks in an unguarded moment in Rom 16:11 of his "kinsman Herodion" is an impossible coincidence. The name Herodion could refer to any person by this name anywhere, still names like Herod and its derivatives (n.b. the parallel with the name of Caesar's son "Caesarion") are not common.
maryhelena
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Aretas V

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 3:12 am We have strong reasons to assume presence of Nabatean troops in Damascus during the First Jewish Revolt.

Greg Doudna

Nabataean military unit under Roman command at Damascus

To return again to 2 Corinthians 11—according to Josephus there was a massacre of Jews in Damascus in a context of region-wide ethnic conflict at the time of the First Jewish Revolt. That could be a context for Roman military presence in Damascus. We know the Nabataeans were supplying military units to the Romans at this time. In this light the “ethnarch under Aretas” of 2 Corinthians 11 may read as a commander of a Nabataean military unit in cooperation with the Roman army, other language for Roman military presence in Damascus.


I don't see that ''could be'' and ''may read'' is any sort of a '' strong reasons to assume presence of Nabatean troops in Damascus during the First Jewish Revolt.''...let alone these troops being troops of an Aretas V.

We don't have reasons at all to assume an Aretas IV in Damascus.
Correct :thumbup:

Aretas III, even if he had Damascus, is a priori excluded because there is no independent evidence of a Paul contemporary of Aretas III.
You have no evidence that the NT figure of Paul is a historical figure.

We have independent evidence of a Paul active during the First Jewish Revolt.
So far in this thread no such evidence has been provided - plenty of assertion though.... :shock:

(my formatting)
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9077
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Aretas V

Post by Giuseppe »

FACT: the Nabateans were allied with the Romans during the First Jewish Revolt.

Hardly a forger could write the Pauline passage about Aretas. Why should he have done so?
Hence, a historical Paul probably existed, even only to write that passage (which assumes an entire historical background behind it, what is usually called its "Sitz im Leben").
maryhelena
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Aretas V

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 4:43 am FACT: the Nabateans were allied with the Romans during the First Jewish Revolt.

Greg Doudna

Nabataean military unit under Roman command at Damascus

To return again to 2 Corinthians 11—according to Josephus there was a massacre of Jews in Damascus in a context of region-wide ethnic conflict at the time of the First Jewish Revolt. That could be a context for Roman military presence in Damascus. We know the Nabataeans were supplying military units to the Romans at this time. In this light the “ethnarch under Aretas” of 2 Corinthians 11 may read as a commander of a Nabataean military unit in cooperation with the Roman army, other language for Roman military presence in Damascus.


I don't see that ''could be'' and ''may read'' is any sort of a '' strong reasons to assume presence of Nabatean troops in Damascus during the First Jewish Revolt.''...let alone these troops being troops of an Aretas V.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9077
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Aretas V

Post by Giuseppe »

Really should I care to quote Josephus where he says again and again that the Nabateans were allied with the Romans during the First Jewish Revolt?
maryhelena
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Aretas V

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 5:24 am Really should I care to quote Josephus where he says again and again that the Nabateans were allied with the Romans during the First Jewish Revolt?

Malchus also, the king of Arabia, sent a thousand horsemen, besides five thousand footmen, the greatest part of which were archers;

Josephus: War book 3 ch.4


Malichus II (Arabic: مالك‎ Malik) was ruler of Nabatea from 40 to 70 AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malichus_II

The Nabataean troops were sent by the Natabean King Malichus.

Giuseppe - the focus of your thread is an assumed Aretas V. You have provided no evidence for this assumed Aretas V.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9077
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Aretas V

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:56 am
Giuseppe - the focus of your thread is an assumed Aretas V. You have provided no evidence for this assumed Aretas V.
Malichus II had a son called Aretas. This is a FACT.
And a daughter who was a queen: given the FACT that only male could rule in Nabatea, then the king who ruled with the daughter of Malichus II could only be: Aretas V.
maryhelena
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Aretas V

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 7:01 am
maryhelena wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:56 am
Giuseppe - the focus of your thread is an assumed Aretas V. You have provided no evidence for this assumed Aretas V.
Malichus II had a son called Aretas. This is a FACT.
And a daughter who was a queen: given the FACT that only male could rule in Nabatea, then the king who ruled with the daughter of Malichus II could only be: Aretas V.
But you don't have a FACT that there was an Aretas V and that this Aretas V had control of Damascus.

All you have been doing is reading an interpretation of 2 Cor. 11.32 into Natabaean history.

What is necessary is the opposite - applying Natabaean history to an interpretation of 2 Cor. 11.32.

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 fallout from doing that is that the NT story about Paul needs to be reconsidered.

Even if, for argument, there was an Aretas V and he somehow had control of Damascus in the late 60s c.e. - that would only add to an interpretation of 2 Cor. 11.32 i.e. the text, being ambiguous, with no identifying marker for Aretas, would present two Pauline scenarios. An early Paul and a later Paul. In other words - the beginning and the end of the development stage of Christianity.

The primary marker is Aretas III. That's the chronology for the starting line. The NT does not date the death of it's Paul figure. Interestingly, once one moves Paul beyond 70 c.e. and gives him the 30 or so years that the NT chronology appears to give him....then one has Paul running into the 90s and has to face Josephus. And, as I'm sure your aware, the similarities of stories between Paul and Josephus are intriguing. Thus, moving Paul post 70 c.e. one has not solved anything regarding early christian origins - one has instead opened the roadway to places one might not want to go.....
Post Reply