Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
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 11:33 am
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.
I thought so. Just wanted to clarify.

As far as 63 BCE goes I believe that Paul would have been in Cilicia, doing what I have no idea, a secret part of me wants him to be a pirate there. ;)

As far as 37 BCE, the Parthians had invaded Syria and probably made it difficult to return to the Levant until they were repulsed. Also, Paul never says that he is from Jerusalem but rather seems to hail from Damascus. It is only Acts that makes that claim.

Bottom line. I don't know.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Jax wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:05 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:33 am
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.
I thought so. Just wanted to clarify.

As far as 63 BCE goes I believe that Paul would have been in Cilicia, doing what I have no idea, a secret part of me wants him to be a pirate there. ;)

As far as 37 BCE, the Parthians had invaded Syria and probably made it difficult to return to the Levant until they were repulsed. Also, Paul never says that he is from Jerusalem but rather seems to hail from Damascus. It is only Acts that makes that claim.

Bottom line. I don't know.
Blood ties are strong - many an Irish American never set foot in Ireland - yet dug deep into their pockets for the Irish rebels over the water...Paul would be an oddball indeed if what the Romans were doing to the Hasmoneans in the lst century B.C. was of no concern. Playing ball with the Romans while his brothers were suffering - not a good look - especially for someone who wants to tell the Jews to play happy chaps with the Gentiles.....the Romans beat us up now you want us to play nice with them.....methinks Paul would be told to take a running jump...... ;)
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 12:33 pm
Jax wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:05 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:33 am
Jax wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:30 am
maryhelena wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:17 am

Thanks for that info.



OK - other options besides the hired gun mercenary :D



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.



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.



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.....



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.
I thought so. Just wanted to clarify.

As far as 63 BCE goes I believe that Paul would have been in Cilicia, doing what I have no idea, a secret part of me wants him to be a pirate there. ;)

As far as 37 BCE, the Parthians had invaded Syria and probably made it difficult to return to the Levant until they were repulsed. Also, Paul never says that he is from Jerusalem but rather seems to hail from Damascus. It is only Acts that makes that claim.

Bottom line. I don't know.
Blood ties are strong - many an Irish American never set foot in Ireland - yet dug deep into their pockets for the Irish rebels over the water...Paul would be an oddball indeed if what the Romans were doing to the Hasmoneans in the lst century B.C. was of no concern. Playing ball with the Romans while his brothers were suffering - not a good look - especially for someone who wants to tell the Jews to play happy chaps with the Gentiles.....the Romans beat us up now you want us to play nice with them.....methinks Paul would be told to take a running jump...... ;)
Unless he is a Herodian. And the letters do have him making a collection of monies to take back to Judea.

Food for thought.

Lane
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Paul, re the NT, was in Damascus when the city was under control of Aretas III. The dating for Aretas III in Damascus is 85 to 72 b.c. and 69 to 64/63 b.c. These dates place Paul within Hasmonean history. Alexander Jannaeus, 103 - 76 b.c., was involved with Aretas III. Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II were also involved with Aretas III around 64/63 b.c.

Three options have been proposed in order to evade the Hasmonean issue:

1) having a historical Paul joining the Roman military in the first century b.c. (Aretas III)

2) inventing a scenario in which Aretas IV (9 b.c. to 40 c.e) controlled Damascus - thus allowing for a historical Paul to be in Damascus in the early lst century C.E. - a time period in which Hasmonean history was, well, history.

3)Greg Doudna is suggesting a link between an unknown Aretas V with Damascus and moving Paul's stay in Damascus to close to 70 c.e.

Bottom line: Only one Aretas controlled Damascus, Aretas III.

The three proposed scenarios all evade the issue of a Pauline connection to Hasmonean history. Whether one wants to uphold the idea of a historical Paul being connected to Hasmonean history - or whether one upholds the figure of the NT Paul as being an ahistorical literary figure - Hasmonean history is fundamental to the NT story of Paul. Evading the issue serves only to keep the search for early christian origins from moving forward.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Jax wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:47 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:33 pm
Jax wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:05 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:33 am
Jax wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:30 am

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.
I thought so. Just wanted to clarify.

As far as 63 BCE goes I believe that Paul would have been in Cilicia, doing what I have no idea, a secret part of me wants him to be a pirate there. ;)

As far as 37 BCE, the Parthians had invaded Syria and probably made it difficult to return to the Levant until they were repulsed. Also, Paul never says that he is from Jerusalem but rather seems to hail from Damascus. It is only Acts that makes that claim.

Bottom line. I don't know.
Blood ties are strong - many an Irish American never set foot in Ireland - yet dug deep into their pockets for the Irish rebels over the water...Paul would be an oddball indeed if what the Romans were doing to the Hasmoneans in the lst century B.C. was of no concern. Playing ball with the Romans while his brothers were suffering - not a good look - especially for someone who wants to tell the Jews to play happy chaps with the Gentiles.....the Romans beat us up now you want us to play nice with them.....methinks Paul would be told to take a running jump...... ;)
Unless he is a Herodian.
Anything at all to keep at bay the Hasmoneans.....

And the letters do have him making a collection of monies to take back to Judea.
But your shifting gears here - that story is placed in the 1st century c.e.......

Food for thought.

Lane
...rather thoughts for evading the Hasmonean issue........
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 1:35 pm
Jax wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:47 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:33 pm
Jax wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:05 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:33 am

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.
I thought so. Just wanted to clarify.

As far as 63 BCE goes I believe that Paul would have been in Cilicia, doing what I have no idea, a secret part of me wants him to be a pirate there. ;)

As far as 37 BCE, the Parthians had invaded Syria and probably made it difficult to return to the Levant until they were repulsed. Also, Paul never says that he is from Jerusalem but rather seems to hail from Damascus. It is only Acts that makes that claim.

Bottom line. I don't know.
Blood ties are strong - many an Irish American never set foot in Ireland - yet dug deep into their pockets for the Irish rebels over the water...Paul would be an oddball indeed if what the Romans were doing to the Hasmoneans in the lst century B.C. was of no concern. Playing ball with the Romans while his brothers were suffering - not a good look - especially for someone who wants to tell the Jews to play happy chaps with the Gentiles.....the Romans beat us up now you want us to play nice with them.....methinks Paul would be told to take a running jump...... ;)
Unless he is a Herodian.
Anything at all to keep at bay the Hasmoneans.....

And the letters do have him making a collection of monies to take back to Judea.
But your shifting gears here - that story is placed in the 1st century c.e.......

Food for thought.

Lane
...rather thoughts for evading the Hasmonean issue........
I have no reason for evading an Hasmonean issue, far from it, I welcome anything that places a Paul in a Hasmonean setting, if for nothing else because it deals with the 1st centuries BCE. I will continue to investigate the possibility of a 1st century BCE Paul. If there is an Hasmonean element then I welcome it with open arms.

Can we really say when the money collection was introduced in the letters? This is a major part of the problem imo.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Jax wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:52 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:35 pm
Jax wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:47 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:33 pm
Jax wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:05 pm

I thought so. Just wanted to clarify.

As far as 63 BCE goes I believe that Paul would have been in Cilicia, doing what I have no idea, a secret part of me wants him to be a pirate there. ;)

As far as 37 BCE, the Parthians had invaded Syria and probably made it difficult to return to the Levant until they were repulsed. Also, Paul never says that he is from Jerusalem but rather seems to hail from Damascus. It is only Acts that makes that claim.

Bottom line. I don't know.
Blood ties are strong - many an Irish American never set foot in Ireland - yet dug deep into their pockets for the Irish rebels over the water...Paul would be an oddball indeed if what the Romans were doing to the Hasmoneans in the lst century B.C. was of no concern. Playing ball with the Romans while his brothers were suffering - not a good look - especially for someone who wants to tell the Jews to play happy chaps with the Gentiles.....the Romans beat us up now you want us to play nice with them.....methinks Paul would be told to take a running jump...... ;)
Unless he is a Herodian.
Anything at all to keep at bay the Hasmoneans.....

And the letters do have him making a collection of monies to take back to Judea.
But your shifting gears here - that story is placed in the 1st century c.e.......

Food for thought.

Lane
...rather thoughts for evading the Hasmonean issue........
I have no reason for evading an Hasmonean issue, far from it, I welcome anything that places a Paul in a Hasmonean setting, if for nothing else because it deals with the 1st centuries BCE. I will continue to investigate the possibility of a 1st century BCE Paul. If there is an Hasmonean element then I welcome it with open arms.

Can we really say when the money collection was introduced in the letters? This is a major part of the problem imo.
It's only a major problem if one holds to a historical Paul.....

Paul collects money from his churches, congregations, communities and sends it to Jerusalem. Paul, in this story, has already had his conversion and has built up an organization of sorts. It's hard to imagine any such christian organization functioning in the lst century b.c. On top of that it is even harder to imagine that non-Jews/Gentiles in the Roman military are going to send funds, via Paul, to the Jewish rebels in Jerusalem....And of course, it's also hard to imagine that any of this was going on prior to 70 c.e.

Hence, problems aplenty for a historical Paul - the Christians very own Scarlet Pimpernel. Whereas, with the paper apostle Paul one can set him down just anywhere that suits ones story. A paper apostle Paul has flexibility - a historical Paul is a time constricted Paul.
They seek him here, they seek him there
Those Christians seek him everywhere
Is he in heaven or is he in hell?
That demned elusive Pimpernel”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/27376- ... -frenchies
(with apologies to the authors)

Very please to know that the Hasmoneans are not persons non grata in your NT searching..... :thumbup:
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 1:29 pm Paul, re the NT, was in Damascus when the city was under control of Aretas III. The dating for Aretas III in Damascus is 85 to 72 b.c. and 69 to 64/63 b.c. These dates place Paul within Hasmonean history. Alexander Jannaeus, 103 - 76 b.c., was involved with Aretas III. Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II were also involved with Aretas III around 64/63 b.c.

Three options have been proposed in order to evade the Hasmonean issue:

1) having a historical Paul joining the Roman military in the first century b.c. (Aretas III)

2) inventing a scenario in which Aretas IV (9 b.c. to 40 c.e) controlled Damascus - thus allowing for a historical Paul to be in Damascus in the early lst century C.E. - a time period in which Hasmonean history was, well, history.

3)Greg Doudna is suggesting a link between an unknown Aretas V with Damascus and moving Paul's stay in Damascus to close to 70 c.e.

Bottom line: Only one Aretas controlled Damascus, Aretas III.

The three proposed scenarios all evade the issue of a Pauline connection to Hasmonean history. Whether one wants to uphold the idea of a historical Paul being connected to Hasmonean history - or whether one upholds the figure of the NT Paul as being an ahistorical literary figure - Hasmonean history is fundamental to the NT story of Paul. Evading the issue serves only to keep the search for early christian origins from moving forward.
Concerning point one, he might not have had a choice. Roman Generals like Pompey and Cassius were demanding auxiliary troops from all of the client kingdoms of the East for their civil wars. If Paul were part of a standing army of say, Jews in Syria for example, he would have been sent to Greece and Macedonia to fight on the side of those generals. The same goes for the campaigns of Mark Anthony later and finally Augustus in the end. He would have had 0 choice about it and if Anthony wanted to keep some auxiliary troops in Greece, even in peace time, that is where they would stay.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Jax wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:11 am
maryhelena wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:29 pm Paul, re the NT, was in Damascus when the city was under control of Aretas III. The dating for Aretas III in Damascus is 85 to 72 b.c. and 69 to 64/63 b.c. These dates place Paul within Hasmonean history. Alexander Jannaeus, 103 - 76 b.c., was involved with Aretas III. Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II were also involved with Aretas III around 64/63 b.c.

Three options have been proposed in order to evade the Hasmonean issue:

1) having a historical Paul joining the Roman military in the first century b.c. (Aretas III)

2) inventing a scenario in which Aretas IV (9 b.c. to 40 c.e) controlled Damascus - thus allowing for a historical Paul to be in Damascus in the early lst century C.E. - a time period in which Hasmonean history was, well, history.

3)Greg Doudna is suggesting a link between an unknown Aretas V with Damascus and moving Paul's stay in Damascus to close to 70 c.e.

Bottom line: Only one Aretas controlled Damascus, Aretas III.

The three proposed scenarios all evade the issue of a Pauline connection to Hasmonean history. Whether one wants to uphold the idea of a historical Paul being connected to Hasmonean history - or whether one upholds the figure of the NT Paul as being an ahistorical literary figure - Hasmonean history is fundamental to the NT story of Paul. Evading the issue serves only to keep the search for early christian origins from moving forward.
Concerning point one, he might not have had a choice. Roman Generals like Pompey and Cassius were demanding auxiliary troops from all of the client kingdoms of the East for their civil wars. If Paul were part of a standing army of say, Jews in Syria for example, he would have been sent to Greece and Macedonia to fight on the side of those generals. The same goes for the campaigns of Mark Anthony later and finally Augustus in the end. He would have had 0 choice about it and if Anthony wanted to keep some auxiliary troops in Greece, even in peace time, that is where they would stay.
OK - so an historical Paul could have found himself, as a non-Roman, Jewish citizen of Judaea, conscripted into the Roman military - albeit as a cook or tent maker. That then takes him travelling - and as you suggest - to places that later feature in the Paul of the epistles foreign journeys/letters to his churches/communities in Christ.

That scenario requires a historical Paul having churches/communities in Christ in the first century b.c. Methinks it's a very difficult jump from a historical Paul in, or working in, the Roman military to a historical Paul founding churches/communities in Christ crucified in the first century b.c. One could put aside the gospel JC crucifixion story under Pilate and Tiberius. Then we are back to the story of the Toledot Yeshu.

An historical Paul escapes from Damascus prior to 69 b.c. when Aretas III regains control of the city. That would place his birth at the latest around 89 b.c. (giving him 20 years old for the escape episode - a very young escapee..) Aretas III controlled Damascus in 85 b.c. (thus an escape by a historical Paul could be much earlier than 69 b.c. - thus pushing his birth even further back than around 89 b.c.)

The problems for an historical Paul in the first century b.c. are many. The interesting thing for me is that you linked the travelling Paul of the epistles to a travelling Paul with the Roman military of the lst century b.c.. Rather than follow that angle to understanding the Aretas NT problem - following the military angle to Alexander Jannaeus could be more profitable for research into early Jewish roots of early christianity.

2 Cor. 11. 32.33 has linked it's Paul figure to Aretas and Damascus. History dating for Aretas III in Damascus is 85 to 72 b.c. and 69 to 64/63 b.c. (No other Aretas controlled Damascus.) Logically then, all these dates are relevant to the Paul and Aretas story. If Paul is off with the Roman military, having no contact at all with Aretas III (he escapes re the proposed theory prior to Aretas III regaining control of Damascus in 69 b.c. ) - then the long history of Aretas III with the Hasmoneans is sidelined - and NT research is once again stalled.

For myself, I find it fascinating that the epistles have connected their Paul figure with Damascus and Aretas III. I don't think Damascus itself is the focus of the connection - that city only serves to date Aretas III - and that dating links Aretas III to conflict with the Hasmoneans. It also links the NT Paul story to the Toledot Yeshu timeline. (and of course - suggests we are not dealing with a historical Paul, either in the first century b.c. or the first century c.e. - it's a literary Paul, a paper apostle Paul, that has flexibility to be all over the place....)

Yes, there is much ado about the Toledot Yeshu story. Obviously, I don't take the story literary - just as I don't take the gospel JC story literary. What is of interest is the placing of the story in the lst century b.c. A period of time in which your proposed historical Paul lived. And, as I wrote earlier - a first century b.c. Paul has to take his christ crucified scenario with him. The Toldot Yeshu story is set around 90 b.c. - in the time of Alexander Jannaeus. The big problem with the story is that the wife of Alexander Jannaeus was not called Helene. Below is a link to a FRDB thread I put up ,some years ago, regarding the Helene figure from the Toledot Yeshu.

Who is Queen Helene of the Toledot Yeshu ?

https://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sh ... l?t=317642

What the Toledot Yeshu story does do is indicate that the gospel JC story is a story with deep roots; deep roots going back to the lst century b.c. In other words - to deep roots in Hasmonean history. It is these Hasmonean deep roots which the NT writers are referencing with their story about their Paul figure escaping from Aretas III in Damascus.
Last edited by maryhelena on Thu Aug 05, 2021 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by mlinssen »

You might be interested in a fresh translation and transcription if the Toledot Yeshu

https://www.academia.edu/49575135/The_V ... ldot_Yeshu
Post Reply