Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by Charles Wilson »

maryhelena wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:03 amAnd where are we today? Still, so it seems, making up grand theories about 70 c.e. The Hasmoneans would be shaking their heads in disbelief - those Romans/Gentiles never did understand Jewish history. Methinks it's the Hasmoneans that would be having the last laugh at the Romans. Under the very nose of Rome the Hasmoneans got their point across - the pen is mightier than the sword.
I've written almost word for word what you have written above. It's the point where I wish I could get you to see our agreements. Oh, well...

The Romans did not understand the Hasmoneans but they didn't care. Herod killed the Hasmonean Ruler Family and the Romans did the rest. They took a Story and Transvalued it, rewriting it for the glory of the Flavians. IT DIDN'T MATTER IF THEY "UNDERSTOOD" THE HASMONEANS. Dead men tell no tales. It's taken about 2000 years for that pen to triumph and we're still at the beginning.
That the Roman Christians turned a Jewish philosophical world view into a story about a walking on water nobody type figure - well - eventually, ideas do loose their potency and find themselves languishing in their netherworld ...
What History are you talking about here? What History?

Who was Peter? Was this Hasmonean History by some chance? Maybe Priestly History? How would you know? If it's all "Interpretive" in that pejorative sense you assert, then the argument stops here and it's a Full Stop.

C'mon maryhelena, take out paper and pencil. Which Mishmarot Groups were on Duty for the 4 BCE Passover? You can figure it out. Why is it important? Why would it be important?

What is the meaning in GJohn of "Behold the 'Lamb of God'?" What about " 'nmmr-ha'ad"? Could that mean "Panther of Ha'ad? Nimrod, perhaps? BTW, that comes from Sumer, a thousand years prior to "Biblical Times". What about " 'nmmr-Yah"? Panther-of Yah? Then, what about "Immar-Yah"?

"What a coincidence!!!" It's always a coincidence. It's always "Interpretive", isn't it?

"Propositions are lures for feeling".

-- Alfred North Whitehead

The Hasmoneans were a Threat and they were dealt with by the Romans. Your depth of knowledge of Antigonus is compelling but the agreement here is that the Hasmoneans left their mark in the Data.

If, however, they did in fact do that, then you should follow the Hasmonean History that you might find in the NT.
It's there, it really is there. If you are willing to look.

Best,

CW
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Charles Wilson wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:40 pm
maryhelena wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:03 amAnd where are we today? Still, so it seems, making up grand theories about 70 c.e. The Hasmoneans would be shaking their heads in disbelief - those Romans/Gentiles never did understand Jewish history. Methinks it's the Hasmoneans that would be having the last laugh at the Romans. Under the very nose of Rome the Hasmoneans got their point across - the pen is mightier than the sword.
I've written almost word for word what you have written above. It's the point where I wish I could get you to see our agreements. Oh, well...

The Romans did not understand the Hasmoneans but they didn't care. Herod killed the Hasmonean Ruler Family and the Romans did the rest. They took a Story and Transvalued it, rewriting it for the glory of the Flavians. IT DIDN'T MATTER IF THEY "UNDERSTOOD" THE HASMONEANS. Dead men tell no tales. It's taken about 2000 years for that pen to triumph and we're still at the beginning.
That the Roman Christians turned a Jewish philosophical world view into a story about a walking on water nobody type figure - well - eventually, ideas do loose their potency and find themselves languishing in their netherworld ...
What History are you talking about here? What History?
No mention of history in that last statement of mine....no dating is given or suggested. However, the reality is all around us...
Who was Peter? Was this Hasmonean History by some chance? Maybe Priestly History? How would you know? If it's all "Interpretive" in that pejorative sense you assert, then the argument stops here and it's a Full Stop.

C'mon maryhelena, take out paper and pencil. Which Mishmarot Groups were on Duty for the 4 BCE Passover? You can figure it out. Why is it important? Why would it be important?
Not interested in priestly groups on duty at Herod's temple.....and methinks neither would the Hasmoneans be interested......

What is the meaning in GJohn of "Behold the 'Lamb of God'?" What about " 'nmmr-ha'ad"? Could that mean "Panther of Ha'ad? Nimrod, perhaps? BTW, that comes from Sumer, a thousand years prior to "Biblical Times". What about " 'nmmr-Yah"? Panther-of Yah? Then, what about "Immar-Yah"?

"What a coincidence!!!" It's always a coincidence. It's always "Interpretive", isn't it?

"Propositions are lures for feeling".

-- Alfred North Whitehead

The Hasmoneans were a Threat and they were dealt with by the Romans. Your depth of knowledge of Antigonus is compelling but the agreement here is that the Hasmoneans left their mark in the Data.

If, however, they did in fact do that, then you should follow the Hasmonean History that you might find in the NT.
It's there, it really is there. If you are willing to look.

Best,

CW
Yes, I'm doing my very best to follow Hasmonean history - history - not interpretations of Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic words found in the NT. Word play might have it's uses - but history is primary.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by StephenGoranson »

mary, Hasmonean history indeed has its uses, but it ended. And I know some of what you think did *not* happen

(Aside: History does, or does not repeat itself, but it rhymes? Such--not claiming you said any of those post Mark Twain versions--do not seem to be reliable rules.)

One thing I wonder about is what you propose *did* happen in the Herodian dynasty historical times.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Jax wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:14 am
maryhelena wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:05 am OK thanks - I'll look at the links later this evening.
As someone here that has an interest and background in the history of the 1st century BCE, I really look forward to any and all critical observations that you can level onto this subject. :cheers:

Lane
OK, Lane, here is my take on your Paul theory.

Let me begin by acknowledging the huge amount of work, and time, you have put into this project.

My first thought, even prior to considering Aretas III, was a difficulty imagining a Jew fighting with a Roman army. Perhaps some did - I suppose there is always the possibility of a mercenary with a gun to hire approach to life. However, I think that once one would go with that approach to a historical Paul then all bets are off. Is such a man after the money or is he after the adventure - or even a psychopath using war as a cover for killing people. A man of no morals or ideology, religion or philosophy.

Placing a historical Paul running from Aretas III around the second time Aretas III controlled Damascus in 69 b.c. would not be a big issue for me - (as opposed to the end of Aretas III control of Damascus around 64/63 b.c.) However, where was the historical Paul when Roman troops entered Jerusalem in 63 b.c. and Pompey entered the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem temple? Did he side with Rome against his own Jewish people?

Yes, the NT story has given it’s Paul figure a change of heart. From being a persecutor to being a man welcoming Greek and Jew as one - enemies no more. It’s possible that an historical mercenary Paul had a change of heart - but, chronologically, this would be dated to the lst century. (If a historical Paul was already running from Aretas III in 69 b.c. then he was at least a young man - possibly a birth around 89 b.c. or earlier…)

One could argue that the later NT writers transformed a first century Paul into the Paul of the epistles - his wayward days of fighting with the Romans in foreign places becomes the template for Paul’s new role as an apostle to the Gentiles. When did that missionary work begin? Surely, doubtful in the lst century b.c. However, once one has moved Paul to the lst century then one also has to move his Christ crucified figure to the first century b.c. (one then has to deal with the Roman execution of Antigonus in 37 b.c. ) Also of courses, we are now in the chronological frame of the Toledot Yeshu - and Alexander Jannaeus.

And with Alexander Jannaeus in the chronological time frame - other options for a Paul figure arise. By linking the NT Paul figure with Aretas - the NT writers have opened up a historical landscape of Hasmonean history. In the chronological time frame of Aretas III, (control of Damascus in 85 b.c. ) the Hasmonean warrior figure was Alexander Jannaeus.


Alexander Jannaeus

The kingdom of Alexander Jannaeus was the largest and strongest known Jewish State outside of biblical sources, having conquered most of Palestine's Mediterranean coastline and regions surrounding the Jordan River.

<snip>

The Judean Civil War initially began after the conquest of Gaza around 99 BCE. Due to Jannaeus's victory at Gaza, the Nabataean kingdom no longer had direct access to the Mediterranean Sea. Alexander soon captured Gadara, which together with the loss of Gaza caused the Nabataeans to lose their main trade routes leading to Rome and Damascus. After losing Gadara, the Nabataean king Obodas I launched an attack against Alexander in a steep valley at Gadara, where Alexander barely managed to escape.

<snip>

Final campaigns and death

During his last years, Alexander continued campaigning in the east.[20] The Nabataean king Aretas III managed to defeat Alexander in battle, however, Alexander continued expanding the Hasmonean kingdom into Transjordan.[20] In Gaulanitis, he captured the cities of Gaulana, Seleucia, Gamala[20] and Hippos;[13] in Galaaditis, the cities of Pella, Dium, and Gerasa.[20] Alexander had Pella destroyed for refusing to Judaize.[21] Alexander captured all these cities in a period of three years (83-80 BCE). Three years later, Alexander had succumbed to an illness during the siege of Ragaba.[20] Having reigned 27 years, Alexander Jannaeus died at the age of forty-nine.[22]

The Pauline epistles by linking Paul to Aretas III (no other Aretas controlled Damascus) is placing it’s Paul figure in the time of the Hasmoneans. Not simply the time of the Hasmonean civil war between Artistobulus II and Hyrancus II - a civil war in which Aretas III was involved in trying to unseat Aristobulus II and reinstate Hyrcanus II - but also the time of Alexander Jannaeus. Yes, the NT story about Paul’s missionary travels are not the same places where Alexander Jannaeus fought wars. But it’s not Roman history that is relevant to the Paul and Aretas linkage - it is Hasmonean history linked to Aretas III.

Basically, what I think is going on here is that the NT writers have modelled their literary Paul, Paul as a persecuting figure, on Alexander Jannaeus. They have transformed Alexander Jannaeus’s wars of expanding the Jewish territory to their literary Paul figure expanding the missionary work to Gentiles in foreign places. In a sense - updating Hasmonean history from nationalism to universalism.

It’s a bit like the gospel JC story. Underneath the turn the other cheek is a zealot type Jesus. Reza Aslan’s ZEALOT and Fernando Bermejo-Rubio: Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance. A Reassessment of the Arguments”, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 12 (2014) 1-105.
https://www.academia.edu/10232441/_Jesu ... 2014_1_105

As of now, Lane, that’s about how I see things. A historical Paul is useless but Paul as a paper apostle - therein lies opportunity to further research into early Jewish origins of Christianity.

Paul - have gun will travel mercenary fighting with the Romans - or Alexander Jannaeus as a military leader of renown ? A model of Jewish national expansion that foreshadowed a Hasmonean push for a new spiritual, philosophical world view of neither Jew nor Greek ?

So…well done, Lane - scratch the surface and you came up with a historical Paul as a military, mercenary type Jewish fighter - albeit with the Romans. Scratch a little bit deeper - and you have a historical King and High Priest of the Jews, Alexander Jannaeus, 103 – 76 b.c. loosing a battle against Aretas III. (and thanks for pushing my thinking about the NT Paul as far back as Alexander Jannaeus and Aretas III.... :thumbup: )

Image

Judaea, Hasmonean Period. Alexander Jannaeus (Yehonatan). AE prutah. 103-76 BC. 1.43 g.

Lily surrounded by Hebrew "Yehonatan the King".
Anchor within circle, "Alexander the king".

AJC I, Group A. Hendin 467.

With permission of Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles Auction 10, Lot 2605, May 2001.

https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/ ... eus/t.html

User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

StephenGoranson wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 4:39 am mary, Hasmonean history indeed has its uses, but it ended. And I know some of what you think did *not* happen

(Aside: History does, or does not repeat itself, but it rhymes? Such--not claiming you said any of those post Mark Twain versions--do not seem to be reliable rules.)

One thing I wonder about is what you propose *did* happen in the Herodian dynasty historical times.
Herodian history ? Josephus cooked the books......and that's all I am going to say - so keep wondering.....
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by StephenGoranson »

If that's all you've got, nevermind.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by Jax »

maryhelena wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 5:02 am
Jax wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:14 am
maryhelena wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:05 am OK thanks - I'll look at the links later this evening.
As someone here that has an interest and background in the history of the 1st century BCE, I really look forward to any and all critical observations that you can level onto this subject. :cheers:

Lane
OK, Lane, here is my take on your Paul theory.

Let me begin by acknowledging the huge amount of work, and time, you have put into this project.

My first thought, even prior to considering Aretas III, was a difficulty imagining a Jew fighting with a Roman army. Perhaps some did - I suppose there is always the possibility of a mercenary with a gun to hire approach to life. However, I think that once one would go with that approach to a historical Paul then all bets are off. Is such a man after the money or is he after the adventure - or even a psychopath using war as a cover for killing people. A man of no morals or ideology, religion or philosophy.

Placing a historical Paul running from Aretas III around the second time Aretas III controlled Damascus in 69 b.c. would not be a big issue for me - (as opposed to the end of Aretas III control of Damascus around 64/63 b.c.) However, where was the historical Paul when Roman troops entered Jerusalem in 63 b.c. and Pompey entered the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem temple? Did he side with Rome against his own Jewish people?

Yes, the NT story has given it’s Paul figure a change of heart. From being a persecutor to being a man welcoming Greek and Jew as one - enemies no more. It’s possible that an historical mercenary Paul had a change of heart - but, chronologically, this would be dated to the lst century. (If a historical Paul was already running from Aretas III in 69 b.c. then he was at least a young man - possibly a birth around 89 b.c. or earlier…)

One could argue that the later NT writers transformed a first century Paul into the Paul of the epistles - his wayward days of fighting with the Romans in foreign places becomes the template for Paul’s new role as an apostle to the Gentiles. When did that missionary work begin? Surely, doubtful in the lst century b.c. However, once one has moved Paul to the lst century then one also has to move his Christ crucified figure to the first century b.c. (one then has to deal with the Roman execution of Antigonus in 37 b.c. ) Also of courses, we are now in the chronological frame of the Toledot Yeshu - and Alexander Jannaeus.

And with Alexander Jannaeus in the chronological time frame - other options for a Paul figure arise. By linking the NT Paul figure with Aretas - the NT writers have opened up a historical landscape of Hasmonean history. In the chronological time frame of Aretas III, (control of Damascus in 85 b.c. ) the Hasmonean warrior figure was Alexander Jannaeus.


Alexander Jannaeus

The kingdom of Alexander Jannaeus was the largest and strongest known Jewish State outside of biblical sources, having conquered most of Palestine's Mediterranean coastline and regions surrounding the Jordan River.

<snip>

The Judean Civil War initially began after the conquest of Gaza around 99 BCE. Due to Jannaeus's victory at Gaza, the Nabataean kingdom no longer had direct access to the Mediterranean Sea. Alexander soon captured Gadara, which together with the loss of Gaza caused the Nabataeans to lose their main trade routes leading to Rome and Damascus. After losing Gadara, the Nabataean king Obodas I launched an attack against Alexander in a steep valley at Gadara, where Alexander barely managed to escape.

<snip>

Final campaigns and death

During his last years, Alexander continued campaigning in the east.[20] The Nabataean king Aretas III managed to defeat Alexander in battle, however, Alexander continued expanding the Hasmonean kingdom into Transjordan.[20] In Gaulanitis, he captured the cities of Gaulana, Seleucia, Gamala[20] and Hippos;[13] in Galaaditis, the cities of Pella, Dium, and Gerasa.[20] Alexander had Pella destroyed for refusing to Judaize.[21] Alexander captured all these cities in a period of three years (83-80 BCE). Three years later, Alexander had succumbed to an illness during the siege of Ragaba.[20] Having reigned 27 years, Alexander Jannaeus died at the age of forty-nine.[22]

The Pauline epistles by linking Paul to Aretas III (no other Aretas controlled Damascus) is placing it’s Paul figure in the time of the Hasmoneans. Not simply the time of the Hasmonean civil war between Artistobulus II and Hyrancus II - a civil war in which Aretas III was involved in trying to unseat Aristobulus II and reinstate Hyrcanus II - but also the time of Alexander Jannaeus. Yes, the NT story about Paul’s missionary travels are not the same places where Alexander Jannaeus fought wars. But it’s not Roman history that is relevant to the Paul and Aretas linkage - it is Hasmonean history linked to Aretas III.

Basically, what I think is going on here is that the NT writers have modelled their literary Paul, Paul as a persecuting figure, on Alexander Jannaeus. They have transformed Alexander Jannaeus’s wars of expanding the Jewish territory to their literary Paul figure expanding the missionary work to Gentiles in foreign places. In a sense - updating Hasmonean history from nationalism to universalism.

It’s a bit like the gospel JC story. Underneath the turn the other cheek is a zealot type Jesus. Reza Aslan’s ZEALOT and Fernando Bermejo-Rubio: Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance. A Reassessment of the Arguments”, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 12 (2014) 1-105.
https://www.academia.edu/10232441/_Jesu ... 2014_1_105

As of now, Lane, that’s about how I see things. A historical Paul is useless but Paul as a paper apostle - therein lies opportunity to further research into early Jewish origins of Christianity.

Paul - have gun will travel mercenary fighting with the Romans - or Alexander Jannaeus as a military leader of renown ? A model of Jewish national expansion that foreshadowed a Hasmonean push for a new spiritual, philosophical world view of neither Jew nor Greek ?

So…well done, Lane - scratch the surface and you came up with a historical Paul as a military, mercenary type Jewish fighter - albeit with the Romans. Scratch a little bit deeper - and you have a historical King and High Priest of the Jews, Alexander Jannaeus, 103 – 76 b.c. loosing a battle against Aretas III. (and thanks for pushing my thinking about the NT Paul as far back as Alexander Jannaeus and Aretas III.... :thumbup: )

Image

Judaea, Hasmonean Period. Alexander Jannaeus (Yehonatan). AE prutah. 103-76 BC. 1.43 g.

Lily surrounded by Hebrew "Yehonatan the King".
Anchor within circle, "Alexander the king".

AJC I, Group A. Hendin 467.

With permission of Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles Auction 10, Lot 2605, May 2001.

https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/ ... eus/t.html

Thanks Mary, it was my passion for a while, my blood ran hot with the pursuit. :) Thank you also for your thoughtful reply.

As far as Jewish combatants fighting for foreign powers, both as auxiliaries and mercenaries, this is well attested to in the histories of the period. If I'm not mistaken, Jewish mercenaries were highly thought of, by the Greeks of the Hellenistic period at any rate. We absolutely do know from the histories of the civil wars of Rome that Jewish auxiliaries were in fact being used in those conflicts and generals like Pompey and Cassius would have been bulking up their armies with whatever mercenaries that they could find. The 'Liberators' by force of necessity did most of their recruiting in the East.

It should also be pointed out that Paul need not be a merc. or combatant to have been in those conflicts as armies in those times used huge numbers of camp followers to do everything from cook food to make and repair tents. Perhaps this is where Paul gets his reputation as a tent maker. No way to know. I just am going off of Paul's usage of military terms and mention of a coworker as a fellow soldier. Tenuous, I agree, but what the hell.

As far as what Paul might have been doing or where he was during Pompey's march on Jerusalem, I haven't a clue. There certainly doesn't seem to be anything in the letters referring to this event. Which, btw brings up a serious problem. If the letters are compilations of smaller letters, as they seem to be, then it is reasonable to suppose that editing was going on. To what extent we can never know with what we have available now. And, a ahistorical Paul cannot be ruled out although, why someone would want to create the personality that we encounter in some of the letters is a mystery to me. Possible of course, just not what I personally would expect.

I took a theory, proposed by someone else, and tried to first, flesh it out, and then to try to tear it down, as I invited you to do, in an effort to see if it could pass as a possible alternate history of a Paul in the mid 1st century. So far it has stood up to critical scrutiny making clear that there is no possibility of finding a historical Paul in any time. Does this mean that Paul is a ahistorical literary construct? Perhaps. I however feel, just feel mind you, not prove, that the Paul that we have now is a combination of very early historical and much later ahistorical construct. A Paul that has so many other fingers in the pie as to be useless as a historical character. I continue to study the problem but for the most part have given up hope of ever finding closure.

Lane
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Jax wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:44 am
Thanks Mary, it was my passion for a while, my blood ran hot with the pursuit. :) Thank you also for your thoughtful reply.

As far as Jewish combatants fighting for foreign powers, both as auxiliaries and mercenaries, this is well attested to in the histories of the period. If I'm not mistaken, Jewish mercenaries were highly thought of, by the Greeks of the Hellenistic period at any rate. We absolutely do know from the histories of the civil wars of Rome that Jewish auxiliaries were in fact being used in those conflicts and generals like Pompey and Cassius would have been bulking up their armies with whatever mercenaries that they could find. The 'Liberators' by force of necessity did most of their recruiting in the East.
Thanks for that info.
It should also be pointed out that Paul need not be a merc. or combatant to have been in those conflicts as armies in those times used huge numbers of camp followers to do everything from cook food to make and repair tents. Perhaps this is where Paul gets his reputation as a tent maker. No way to know. I just am going off of Paul's usage of military terms and mention of a coworker as a fellow soldier. Tenuous, I agree, but what the hell.
OK - other options besides the hired gun mercenary :D

As far as what Paul might have been doing or where he was during Pompey's march on Jerusalem, I haven't a clue. There certainly doesn't seem to be anything in the letters referring to this event.
The historical events of 63 b.c. and 37 b.c. are a problem for a historical Paul being part of a Roman military force in the first century. One could assume he had no interest in what the Roman's were doing in his homeland - but I would find that difficult to understand. One only has to think of the British occupation of Ireland and how money was sent to the Irish 'rebels' from the Irish in the US. Josephus, after the Jewish/Roman war of 70 c.e. went over to the Romans - and paid the price for doing so as regards his credibility with the Jews. So, methinks a historical Paul being neutral to what the Romans were up to with the Hasmoneans would be strange indeed.

Which, btw brings up a serious problem. If the letters are compilations of smaller letters, as they seem to be, then it is reasonable to suppose that editing was going on. To what extent we can never know with what we have available now. And, a ahistorical Paul cannot be ruled out although, why someone would want to create the personality that we encounter in some of the letters is a mystery to me. Possible of course, just not what I personally would expect.
Indeed, I think we can expect lots of editing as the NT story developed. As to why anyone would create an ahistorical Paul - because history was not just about a Roman crucifixion of a King of the Jews - it was also about a philosophical take on that crucifixion. The gospel story needed the epistles - as the epistles needed the gospel story. The NT Paul story does not make sense without a christ crucified. The gospel JC story is a dead end without a Pauline conversion/resurrection. Either both NT figures are historical figures or both NT figures are literary figures. Since neither of these two NT figures can be historically verified - the ahistorical position offers opportunities for researching early Jewish origins of Christianity.

I took a theory, proposed by someone else, and tried to first, flesh it out, and then to try to tear it down, as I invited you to do, in an effort to see if it could pass as a possible alternate history of a Paul in the mid 1st century.
Methinks I took your military involved historical figure of a lst century B.C. Paul in a direction you would prefer not to go.....Sending a lst century B.C. historical Paul off with the Romans - that's playing safe. Hasmonean history is too close to home to be comfortable.....

So far it has stood up to critical scrutiny making clear that there is no possibility of finding a historical Paul in any time. Does this mean that Paul is a ahistorical literary construct? Perhaps. I however feel, just feel mind you, not prove, that the Paul that we have now is a combination of very early historical and much later ahistorical construct. A Paul that has so many other fingers in the pie as to be useless as a historical character. I continue to study the problem but for the most part have given up hope of ever finding closure.

Lane
That's the way forward.....

(my formatting)
Last edited by maryhelena on Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by Jax »

maryhelena wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:17 am
Jax wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:44 am
Thanks Mary, it was my passion for a while, my blood ran hot with the pursuit. :) Thank you also for your thoughtful reply.

As far as Jewish combatants fighting for foreign powers, both as auxiliaries and mercenaries, this is well attested to in the histories of the period. If I'm not mistaken, Jewish mercenaries were highly thought of, by the Greeks of the Hellenistic period at any rate. We absolutely do know from the histories of the civil wars of Rome that Jewish auxiliaries were in fact being used in those conflicts and generals like Pompey and Cassius would have been bulking up their armies with whatever mercenaries that they could find. The 'Liberators' by force of necessity did most of their recruiting in the East.
Thanks for that info.
It should also be pointed out that Paul need not be a merc. or combatant to have been in those conflicts as armies in those times used huge numbers of camp followers to do everything from cook food to make and repair tents. Perhaps this is where Paul gets his reputation as a tent maker. No way to know. I just am going off of Paul's usage of military terms and mention of a coworker as a fellow soldier. Tenuous, I agree, but what the hell.
OK - other options besides the hired gun mercenary :D

As far as what Paul might have been doing or where he was during Pompey's march on Jerusalem, I haven't a clue. There certainly doesn't seem to be anything in the letters referring to this event.
The historical events of 63 b.c. and 37 b.c. are a problem for a historical Paul being part of a Roman military force in the first century. One could assume he had no interest in what the Roman's were doing in his homeland - but I would find that difficult to understand. One only has to think of the British occupation of Ireland and how money was sent to the Irish 'rebels' from the Irish in the US. Josephus, after the Jewish/Roman war of 70 c.e. went over to the Romans - and paid the price for doing so as regards his credibility with the Jews. So, methinks a historical Paul being neutral to what the Romans were up to with the Hasmoneans would be strange indeed.

Which, btw brings up a serious problem. If the letters are compilations of smaller letters, as they seem to be, then it is reasonable to suppose that editing was going on. To what extent we can never know with what we have available now. And, a ahistorical Paul cannot be ruled out although, why someone would want to create the personality that we encounter in some of the letters is a mystery to me. Possible of course, just not what I personally would expect.
Indeed, I think we can expect lots of editing as the NT story developed. As to why anyone would create an ahistorical Paul - because history was not just about a Roman crucifixion of a King of the Jews - it was also about a philosophical take on that crucifixion. The gospel story needed the epistles - as the epistles needed the gospel story. The NT Paul story does not make sense without a christ crucified. The gospel JC story is a dead end without a Pauline conversion/resurrection. Either both NT figures are historical figures or both NT figures are literary figures. Since neither of these two NT figures can be historically verified - the ahistorical position offers opportunities for researching early Jewish origins of Christianity.

I took a theory, proposed by someone else, and tried to first, flesh it out, and then to try to tear it down, as I invited you to do, in an effort to see if it could pass as a possible alternate history of a Paul in the mid 1st century.
Methinks I took your military involved historical figure of a lst century Paul in a direction you would prefer not to go.....Sending a lst century historical Paul off with the Romans - that's playing safe. Hasmonean history is too close to home to be comfortable.....

So far it has stood up to critical scrutiny making clear that there is no possibility of finding a historical Paul in any time. Does this mean that Paul is a ahistorical literary construct? Perhaps. I however feel, just feel mind you, not prove, that the Paul that we have now is a combination of very early historical and much later ahistorical construct. A Paul that has so many other fingers in the pie as to be useless as a historical character. I continue to study the problem but for the most part have given up hope of ever finding closure.

Lane
That's the way forward.....

(my formatting)
Quick question. Do you mean 1st century CE or 1st century BCE?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Jax wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:30 am
maryhelena wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:17 am
Jax wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:44 am
Thanks Mary, it was my passion for a while, my blood ran hot with the pursuit. :) Thank you also for your thoughtful reply.

As far as Jewish combatants fighting for foreign powers, both as auxiliaries and mercenaries, this is well attested to in the histories of the period. If I'm not mistaken, Jewish mercenaries were highly thought of, by the Greeks of the Hellenistic period at any rate. We absolutely do know from the histories of the civil wars of Rome that Jewish auxiliaries were in fact being used in those conflicts and generals like Pompey and Cassius would have been bulking up their armies with whatever mercenaries that they could find. The 'Liberators' by force of necessity did most of their recruiting in the East.
Thanks for that info.
It should also be pointed out that Paul need not be a merc. or combatant to have been in those conflicts as armies in those times used huge numbers of camp followers to do everything from cook food to make and repair tents. Perhaps this is where Paul gets his reputation as a tent maker. No way to know. I just am going off of Paul's usage of military terms and mention of a coworker as a fellow soldier. Tenuous, I agree, but what the hell.
OK - other options besides the hired gun mercenary :D

As far as what Paul might have been doing or where he was during Pompey's march on Jerusalem, I haven't a clue. There certainly doesn't seem to be anything in the letters referring to this event.
The historical events of 63 b.c. and 37 b.c. are a problem for a historical Paul being part of a Roman military force in the first century. One could assume he had no interest in what the Roman's were doing in his homeland - but I would find that difficult to understand. One only has to think of the British occupation of Ireland and how money was sent to the Irish 'rebels' from the Irish in the US. Josephus, after the Jewish/Roman war of 70 c.e. went over to the Romans - and paid the price for doing so as regards his credibility with the Jews. So, methinks a historical Paul being neutral to what the Romans were up to with the Hasmoneans would be strange indeed.

Which, btw brings up a serious problem. If the letters are compilations of smaller letters, as they seem to be, then it is reasonable to suppose that editing was going on. To what extent we can never know with what we have available now. And, a ahistorical Paul cannot be ruled out although, why someone would want to create the personality that we encounter in some of the letters is a mystery to me. Possible of course, just not what I personally would expect.
Indeed, I think we can expect lots of editing as the NT story developed. As to why anyone would create an ahistorical Paul - because history was not just about a Roman crucifixion of a King of the Jews - it was also about a philosophical take on that crucifixion. The gospel story needed the epistles - as the epistles needed the gospel story. The NT Paul story does not make sense without a christ crucified. The gospel JC story is a dead end without a Pauline conversion/resurrection. Either both NT figures are historical figures or both NT figures are literary figures. Since neither of these two NT figures can be historically verified - the ahistorical position offers opportunities for researching early Jewish origins of Christianity.

I took a theory, proposed by someone else, and tried to first, flesh it out, and then to try to tear it down, as I invited you to do, in an effort to see if it could pass as a possible alternate history of a Paul in the mid 1st century.
Methinks I took your military involved historical figure of a lst century Paul in a direction you would prefer not to go.....Sending a lst century historical Paul off with the Romans - that's playing safe. Hasmonean history is too close to home to be comfortable.....

So far it has stood up to critical scrutiny making clear that there is no possibility of finding a historical Paul in any time. Does this mean that Paul is a ahistorical literary construct? Perhaps. I however feel, just feel mind you, not prove, that the Paul that we have now is a combination of very early historical and much later ahistorical construct. A Paul that has so many other fingers in the pie as to be useless as a historical character. I continue to study the problem but for the most part have given up hope of ever finding closure.

Lane
That's the way forward.....

(my formatting)
Quick question. Do you mean 1st century CE or 1st century BCE?
Sorry about that - without checking - I would think all lst century in this post is lst century B.C.

OK - edited earlier post to add B.C.
Post Reply