Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 11:47 am
maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 11:29 am
Obviously, if one upholds a historical NT Paul then one will not be interested in Aretas III.
this is a non-sequitur. Do you think that the Aretas is Aretas III? Well, then in full coherence you should assume that Paul (or the interpolator posing as "Paul") was meaning Aretas III.
The consensus interpretation of 2 Cor.11.32 is based upon the assumed historicity of the NT story regarding JC and Paul. A chronological framework based on the ministry of JC followed by that of Paul. A first century chronology from the mid 30s to late 60s. During that time frame there was no Aretas ruling Damascus.
Options:
1. The writer of 2 Cor. 11.32 made a historical error.
2. Propose ways in which an ethnarch of Aretas IV could
somehow be in control of Damascus - prior to his death in 39/40 c.e.
3. Propose a grandson of Aretas IV, named Aretas, was,
maybe, a King and,
maybe, had troops in Damascus in 68 c.e.
4. Nabataean history is allowed to identify which of it's Kings ruled Damascus: Aretas III in 85 b.c.
5. The NT figure of Paul, being within the NT time frame, cannot be in Damascus during the time it was controlled by Aretas III
6. Nabataean history verse the NT Paul, a figure whose historicity cannot be established. ?
7. 2 Cor. 11.32 is combining Nabataean history with an origin story, an allegory, of early Pauline christian history.
8. Nabataean history of Aretas III has connections with Hasmonean history.
9. Hasmonean history is the ground zero - the historical root from which Christianity developed.
Years ago, on FRDB, spin proposed Aretas III as the ruler of Damascus for 2 Cor. 11.32. At that time I argued the point that the text is ambiguous; the text does not identify which Aretas it is referencing. Thus, allowing for some sort of symbolism or figurative aspect to the text. (The escape over the wall of Damascus reflecting the escape of the spies, under Joshua, escaping over the wall of Jericho prior to the conquest of the Promised Land. The 100 year time period between Aretas III losing control of Damascus around 63 b.c. to the victory in the war of Aretas IV with Antipas (re Josephus) around 36/37 c.e.)
However, at the end of the day, the basic historical impact of the text has to be established. The historical core to the text of 2 Cor. 11.32 is that Aretas III controlled Damascus from 85 b.c. Questions only then arise as to what the writer of 2 Cor. 11.32 was wanting to convey with placing the NT figure of Paul outside of the NT chronological framework. History is paramount - especially so if it's early christian origins that are of interest.
Why do people reject so rapidly the idea that Christianity started it all only after the First Jewish Revolt ? A true mystery. Even when the idea explains very a lot of things.
To view the First Jewish Revolt as somehow being the catalyst for christian origins fails to acknowledge, and hence to appreciate, what the loss of sovereignty had on Jewish thinking. Christianity is all about a spiritual kingdom, a kingdom of neither Jew nor Greek. A Jerusalem above rather than the Jerusalem below. The question becomes what was it in Jewish history that brought about this desire to move away from an earthly kingdom. Sovereignty was not lost in 70 c.e. - It had been lost 107 years earlier. Options for the Hasmoneans were limited. Fight on with the Romans - or move forward towards a kingdom, a spiritual kingdom, without end. Yes, 70 c.e. probably escalated the new philosophical world view - but that new world view would have been ready for prime time.....
==================
footnote:
The writer of 2 Cor. 11.32 has placed an Aretas in control of Damascus outside of the NT chronological time frame. In a similar vein the Lukean writer has placed a ruler outside of the NT chronological framework: Lysanias of Abilene was not ruling during the time of Pilate. He was, re Josephus, executed by Marc Antony. (Ant. book 15 ch. 4 - dated re Wikipedia to 33 b.c. ) The placement of these two historical figures, Aretas III and Lysanias of Abilene, within the NT chronological framework does not indicate errors on the part of the NT writers - they indicate that the NT chronological time frame is a condensed time frame. i.e. it is, as it were, a snapshot of a longer historical period, a longer historical period from which a christian origin story was developed. Within the NT chronological time frame these two historical figures are, as it were, out of context. The 'solution' is not to cry error on the part of the NT writers - the 'solution' is to allow these 'errors' to widen out, to stretch out, the historical canvas from which the NT story was composed.
Sometimes it's good to keep in mind that what we may think is error or downright crazy there might be method in it -''Though this be madness, yet there is method in it' (paraphrase of Shakespeare).