Aretas V

[maryhelena]

Doudna's words are sufficient to neutralize your objection:

In that context Roman control of Damascus could have involved Nabataean forces under Roman command.

Again, you have to face the strongest evidence supporting a thesis, not marginal details, in order to sound caustic about the proponent of said thesis (as it seems to be your intention here about Doudna's views).

It seems my reply got lost in cyberspace - or I hit the wrong button and deleted it....anyway, the reply was not long...

----------------------

I'm interested in history. There is no historical evidence for a King Aretas V. Consequently, that an assumed King Aretas V 'could have' done xyz is jumping the gun....first establish historicity for King Aretas V - then run with the 'could have' scenarios.....

[Charles Wilson]

Both Joshua and Paul take up their roles after the death of a forerunner. i.e. Moses and Jesus. Jericho was the start of Joshua's campaign to secure the Promised Land. Damascus was the start of Paul's campaign to the Gentiles, the foreigners, to bring them into the spiritual Promised Land.

I suppose my Sarcasm was laid on a little too thick. Oh, well...

All of the above is quite True in our Modern Understanding. It even has a Name: TRANSVALUATION. See: Nietzsche. As we look a little deeper, however, we find, as you correctly point out, maryhelena, Hasmonean History. I see more of that than you to want to see but that's OK. The Hasmoneans were a part of a Larger History which is only now being examined - The Mishmarot Priesthood, with the Temple Apparatus, the Organization of the Priesthood, the Settlements in Galilee and so on.

I assert that this is found all over the NT.

If we strip all of that out, however, we find that there is something left and that is encompassed by The Roman Thesis. Are there Historical Markers for the ascension of the Flavians at the expense of the Julio-Claudians? Of course there are. Since these markers are there, it is a fair question to ask if there were other Historical Figures associated with the Flavian ascension. "Mucianus" is one such associated Character.

Who was Mucianus? It really is "low hanging fruit", if anyone cares to look. You don't have to be a Parallelomaniac to see it either. He was very aggressive in the Claudian Court and he paid some sort of price for his aggressiveness. He may have been made a eunuch.

If he was the Template for "Paul" - and I believe he was - then the character "Paul" may have reflected this fact as well.

"OH, NO!!! YOU CAN'T HAVE PAUL, THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, AS A EUNUCH!!!"

Yes, you can. If you Transvalue all of this, you cannot but then you have lost Hasmonean History and all the rest of it.
Yet, and this is where I agree with you maryhelena, the Hasmonean History is actually, really there.

So is "Mucianus". Someone is telling us something there as well.

[lsayre]

Who was Mucianus? It really is "low hanging fruit", if anyone cares to look. You don't have to be a Parallelomaniac to see it either. He was very aggressive in the Claudian Court and he paid some sort of price for his aggressiveness. He may have been made a eunuch.

If he was the Template for "Paul" - and I believe he was - then the character "Paul" may have reflected this fact as well.

"OH, NO!!! YOU CAN'T HAVE PAUL, THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, AS A EUNUCH!!!"

Yes, you can. If you Transvalue all of this, you cannot but then you have lost Hasmonean History and all the rest of it.
Yet, and this is where I agree with you maryhelena, the Hasmonean History is actually, really there.

So is "Mucianus". Someone is telling us something there as well.

So as to not derail this thread, would you be willing to start a separate thread detailing why you equate Mucianus with Paul?

[Giuseppe]

Good news.

I have read the Doudna's article about Aretas V.

The case is very powerful.

[maryhelena]

Does "Aretas" of 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 allude to an Aretas V of 69-70 CE?

Gregory Doudna


https://www.academia.edu/49017407/Does_ ... f_69_70_CE


To recapitulate what we learn from these inscriptions: Se’udat, daughter of Malichus II, was a queen. The attestation of Se‘udat as queen; the identification of after Malichus II yet before Rabbel II as the only time Se‘udat can have ruled; that she had a husband and king; and the viability that Aretas V could have been that husband and king—that is the basis for the proposal that Aretas V was king of the Nabataeans in 69-70 CE. 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.

Top marks for effort re attempted reconstruction of Nabatean history.
Zero marks for assumed historicity re the NT story of Paul.

[Giuseppe]

Note how the presumed "fugue" from Damascus fits perfectly the chronology of the 'three years' before the Paul's visit to Jerusalem:

Official history	NT Paul story
68 CE: Nabatean troops in Damascus	so-called "fugue" from Damascus
70 CE: siege of Jerusalem	Paul's meeting with the Pillars

In the middle between 68 and 70 CE, the 'demonic' Paul knew Jesus of Galilee in Gerasa/Gadara, who is an altered name for the original Capernaum (remember that the Gospel of Barnabas places the Swine Episode in Capernaum), precisely the place where the Marcionite Jesus descended from above as a magical appearance requiring, as only witness, an equally magical Apostle: Paul.

Now you know why that first witness had to be replaced with another: John the Baptist.

This is definitive evidence that the Josephus' Capernaum is stricto sensu the Gospel Capernaum.

[maryhelena]

Official history	NT Paul story
68 CE: Nabatean troops in Damascus	so-called "fugue" from Damascus
70 CE: siege of Jerusalem	Paul's meeting with the Pillars

Official history
68 CE: Nabatean troops in Damascus

Official history that in 68 CE: Nabatean troops in Damascus ?

Does “Aretas” of 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 allude to an
Aretas V of 69-70 CE?

Gregory 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.

There could be a reason why Paul would refer negatively to a Nabataean figure in this episode rather than refer to Romans, even if it were easily possible for Paul to have spoken of Romans or even if Romans were the center of the actual story. In none of Paul’s authentic letters does Paul ever express open criticism of Romans. There is no open criticism of Rome in the letters. In 2 Corinthians Paul introduces his Damascus story of the basket-escape with an oath emphasizing he is not lying. We can only conjecture the nature of the charge concerning the circumstances of Paul’s departure from Damascus to which Paul felt called to respond, but it can be assumed Paul is answering some charge. In this light, Paul’s story naming a Nabataean figure with no mention of Romans may have had rhetorical reasons, obscure to us at this distance.

(my highlighting)

Josephus War book 2 ch.20

2. In the mean time, the people of Damascus, when they were informed of the destruction of the Romans, set about the slaughter of those Jews that were among them; and as they had them already cooped up together in the place of public exercises, which they had done out of the suspicion they had of them, they thought they should meet with no difficulty in the attempt; yet did they distrust their own wives, which were almost all of them addicted to the Jewish religion; on which account it was that their greatest concern was, how they might conceal these things from them; so they came upon the Jews, and cut their throats, as being in a narrow place, in number ten thousand, and all of them unarmed, and this in one hour's time, without any body to disturb them.

[Giuseppe]

Can you deny the following points?

We know the Nabataeans were supplying military units to the Romans at this time.

it can be assumed Paul is answering some charge.

Hardly you can. Under what different theory can you explain why Paul was answering some charge?

Frankly, I find irrational your continue attack without being able to give a best solution to the problem, unless your "solution" is to make Paul lost in the fog of history, especially if it dates back to the last Hasmonean king.

Your tactic is very similar to Roman strategy:

Desertum faciunt et pacem appellant.

Paraphrasing it, I may say equally about you:

Desertum facit et historiam appellat.

[maryhelena]

Can you deny the following points?

We know the Nabataeans were supplying military units to the Romans at this time.

it can be assumed Paul is answering some charge.

Hardly you can. Under what different theory can you explain why Paul was answering some charge?

Frankly, I find irrational your continue attack without being able to give a best solution to the problem, unless your "solution" is to make Paul lost in the fog of history, especially if it dates back to the last Hasmonean king.

Your tactic is very similar to Roman strategy:

Desertum faciunt et pacem appellant.

Paraphrasing it, I may say equally about you:

Desertum facit et historiam appellat.

Goodness, Giuseppe .......

This is what you wrote - what you asserted - that it's official history that in 68 CE: Nabatean troops in Damascus.

Official history
68 CE: Nabatean troops in Damascus

Now. you need to provide historical evidence to support your assertion - or admit that you don't have historical evidence. That's the bottom line - no point in trying to change the subject and throw questions at me.

Interestingly, I did a Word check on Greg Doudna's article - and it showed no use of the word 'official'. Greg used the words - 'could be' and 'may read'.

It seems to me, Giuseppe, that you are running way ahead of what Greg Doudna wrote. Yes, Greg has a theory - a 'could be' - but that is miles away from your words ' official history'.

[Giuseppe]

The charge raised against Paul was probably about the HOW could he have escaped a city full of Roman and Nabatean troops ?

Especially if the "apostles of Christ" who had raised that accusation against Paul were the same described so by Valliand and Fahy in their Creating Christ, p. 46:

The troublemakers that Suetonius and Tacitus called followers of “Chrestus” or “Christians,” on the other hand, are far more like the oppositional orthodox Jews in the New Testament referred to by Paul as “apostles of Christ.”

Paul was attempting a meeting with those “apostles of Christ”, claiming (falsely) to be one of them.

It was strongly expected that Paul had to receive an accusation raising suspicions about his real intentions. Was he covertly a Roman agent?