Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

[GakuseiDon]

Out of interest, is there evidence for who controlled Damascus between 34 CE (which is when Philip the Tetrach died, though he doesn't seem to have been the ruler of Damascus from what I've read) and 40 CE (which is when Aretas IV died)? If there is evidence for whom ruled Damascus in that time, it would put the matter to rest.

Philip's territory, after his death, went to the Province Syria (re Josephus).

Josephus Ant. 17. 4.6. His principality Tiberius took, (for he left no sons behind him,) and added it to the province of Syria, but gave order that the tributes which arose from it should be collected, and laid up in his tetrachy.

Rome was the regional power - that Aretas IV would challenge that power after 34 c.. (the Josephan dating for Philip's death) heaven help him. If he had done so then doubtful he would have any army left to challenge Herod (Antipas) around 36 c.e. If Rome was prepared to go after Aretas IV in 36/37 c.e. for knocking out the army of Herod (Antipas) methinks any earlier attempt by Aretas IV to take on the Romans over control of Damascus would have led to his defeat. (only the death of Tiberius prevented the Romans going to Petra in 36/37 c.e.)

Thanks Maryhelena, that's interesting and pertinent information.

[maryhelena]

A few days ago I posted Greg Doudna's latest comment to Richard Carrier:

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/comment ... mment-1092

Gregory Doudna on Fri, 07/30/2021 - 11:13

The problem is, nothing in Paul's letters with the exception of the claim of an Aretas IV allusion at 2 Cor 11 establishes a pre-70 date directly at any point in those letters, nor have you cited any. You cite an indirect argument from silence, a lack of unambiguous backward allusion to events of 70 in Paul's letters. On Aretas IV, I have submitted an article to a peer-reviewed journal removing the Aretas IV argument for date of Paul's letters by establishing (per argument of my journal submission) from Nabataean evidence that there was another Nabataean king between Malichus II and Rabbel II, ca. 69-70 CE, who may have been named Aretas, the leading candidate for the name, thereby raising another first-century CE possibility for the Aretas referent at 2 Cor 11. All of the argument for the existence of the additional Nabataean king at ca. 69-70 CE whose most plausible name candidate was Aretas, is established independently of 2 Cor 11. There is no reason anyone, whether yourself or any other, should accept that until and if it is vetted through peer review and published (and even then only if the argument holds up to further critical reading and review), but for purposes of this discussion I ask you to assess (if responding to me) how secure you believe the argument for the 50s dating of Paul's letters stands minus the 2 Cor 11 Aretas argument. Does your 50s dating of Paul's letters stand without need of 2 Cor 11, in other words--given that that is the only hard-date argument internal to the letters for a pre-70 date of letter-writing activity of Paul. (Thomas Thompson at Copenhagen has stated for the record that he finds my submitted article proposing a 69-70 CE Aretas V "an entirely convincing hypothesis that should be published".) Again, no reason for you to accept that at this point, not asking you to, but am asking, as a thought experiment, for you to segregate out 2 Cor 11 from your argument-structure for the 50s CE date and assess whether your conclusion on that stands unaffected if 2 Cor 11 were to be removed.

Since then Giuseppe has posted a comment on Carrier's blog giving him notice of Greg's comment on his article on the Bible and Interpretation website.

This is Carrier's comment to Giuseppe:

RICHARD CARRIER AUGUST 12, 2021, 3:04 PM

Thank you. Alas, no further responses to that rambling crank are necessary.

here

Whatever are the merits of Greg's position on Aretas - surely, he does not deserve to be labeled a 'rambling crank'. All one can do is shake ones head in shame that the so called leading mythcist resorts to belittling someone who challenges his position.

Dogmatism, such as Carrier displays, is not only evidence of an entrenched position - but also indicates how shaking the ground upon which that dogmatism stands.

Whichever way the chips finally fall - and they will be historical chips - Jesus from Outer Space will not save Carrier from the fallout.

[Paul the Uncertain]

I had such fun with the Aretases, that I posted about the puzzle on the blog.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... as-puzzle/

The basic findings presented there are:

(1) The wide-spread deep confidence that Aretas IV is Paul's King Aretas owes much to the more general confidence in the "standard model" timeline of Christian origins. Aretas IV fits; III doesn't. Fair enough, then, to ask how things would look without belief in the standard model.

(2) Paul doesn't say Aretas controls Damascus, and doesn't say that Aretas could arrest Paul within the city. Paul's only reported difficulty occurs when he leaves the city, with no reason given for his leaving. Once outside the city, Paul would be fair game for either Aretas, and might be taken by the Nabateans if they knew where an exposed Paul could be found.

(3) Aretas IV is at least a slightly better fit to Paul's story than his predecessor:

(a) Under IV, it makes sense that if Paul had offended Nabateans, then he might have sought refuge in a non-Nabatean city. Under III, it's harder (not impossible, just less obvious) to see how Paul ended up in a Nabatean stronghold, if he was fleeing the Nabateans in a region with so much non-Nabatean territory nearby.

(b) As brief as Paul's statement is, he manages to tell us twice in rapid succession that the story happened in Damascus. Under IV, Paul's choice of phrasing makes some sense, but under III, it's an avoidable lapse, in my view.

Conclude: Aretas IV on points, not a KO. The standard model survives.

[maryhelena]

I had such fun with the Aretases, that I posted about the puzzle on the blog.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... as-puzzle/

The basic findings presented there are:

(1) The wide-spread deep confidence that Aretas IV is Paul's King Aretas owes much to the more general confidence in the "standard model" timeline of Christian origins. Aretas IV fits; III doesn't. Fair enough, then, to ask how things would look without belief in the standard model.

(2) Paul doesn't say Aretas controls Damascus, and doesn't say that Aretas could arrest Paul within the city. Paul's only reported difficulty occurs when he leaves the city, with no reason given for his leaving. Once outside the city, Paul would be fair game for either Aretas, and might be taken by the Nabateans if they knew where an exposed Paul could be found.

(3) Aretas IV is at least a slightly better fit to Paul's story than his predecessor:

(a) Under IV, it makes sense that if Paul had offended Nabateans, then he might have sought refuge in a non-Nabatean city. Under III, it's harder (not impossible, just less obvious) to see how Paul ended up in a Nabatean stronghold, if he was fleeing the Nabateans in a region with so much non-Nabatean territory nearby.

(b) As brief as Paul's statement is, he manages to tell us twice in rapid succession that the story happened in Damascus. Under IV, Paul's choice of phrasing makes some sense, but under III, it's an avoidable lapse, in my view.

Conclude: Aretas IV on points, not a KO. The standard model survives.

Your problem is that the 'standard model' does not have a historical leg to stand on.

Damascus


It is speculated that control of Damascus was gained by Aretas IV Philopatris of Nabatea between the death of Herod Philip in 33/34 AD and the death of Aretas in 40 AD but there is substantial evidence against Aretas controlling the city before 37 AD and many reasons why it could not have been a gift from Caligula between 37 and 40 AD.[52][53] In fact, all these theories stem not from any actual evidence outside the New Testament but rather "a certain understanding of 2 Corinthians 11:32" and in reality "neither from archaeological evidence, secular-historical sources, nor New Testament texts can Nabatean sovereignty over Damascus in the first century AD be proven."

Your position is further based on the assumption of a historical NT Paul. In other words; you are putting narrative, the standard model narrative, before Nabataean history. That is to put the cart before the horse. History is primary. Get the historical ducks in a row - and then face the problem that 2 Cor. 11.32.33.presents for an assumed historical NT Paul figure.

Playing around with theories about Aretas IV is a waste of time. (no histrical evidence that this Nabataean ruler ever had any sort of control over Damascus). If Aretas III is deemed to be unacceptable (re the 'standard model') and an unknown Aretas V is likewise deemed to be unacceptable - then - retreat from the Aretas problem of 2 Cor.11.32.33 and run with interpolation...However, keep in mind that the interpolation retreat breaks the close link between gospel Jesus in the time of Pilate and Tiberius, and Paul of the epistles. Some people might welcome that break while others seek to move the gospel Jesus away from the 'standard model' and shift the gospel Jesus figure along with Paul to a new time slot.

Yes, lot of problems with Aretas of 2 Cor.11.32 - but keeping with the 'standard model' is simply a way to avoid them.....and thus to keep research into the Jewish roots of christianity chained to assumptions.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Howdy, MH

Your problem is that the 'standard model' does not have a historical leg to stand on.

That's not my problem. It's an element of the task which you have voluntarily set yourself.

Regardless, the post sets the standard timeline aside, so it doesn't really matter whether it's well founded or not. We're looking at other things for the time being.

Unsurprisingly, Aretas III does look a lot better when Aretas IV's chief support is taken away.

Enough better? Not for me. But then, IV's handicapped win is not by a lot, either.

Your position is further based on the assumption of a historical NT Paul.

No. The situation of a historical Paul is isomorphic to that of a fictional character in an epistolary novel where references to Damascus are historical (so looking at a map is fair) and "Aretas" refers to a historical man (projected to 2 possibilities, as most seem willing to do for the sake of discussion).

Did Paul ... oops, I mean "the author of what we attribute to Paul" ... intend Aretas III or Aretas IV instead? Same analysis, doesn't change the confidence in the outcome. It's not worth saying all that over and over instead of simply saying Paul.

(no histrical evidence that this Nabataean ruler ever had any sort of control over Damascus)

Paul doesn't say that his Aretas had any sort of control over Damascus. At most, what he writes can fairly be construed as implying that Aretas could develop timely human intelligence about Paul's presence or departure from Damascus. That's all that's on the page.

retreat from the Aretas problem of 2 Cor.11.32.33 and run with interpolation

OK, interpolation is the ever-present rival conjecture. One simply acknowledges the assumption that we are reading what the author intended and ... it makes no difference to the outcome on that acknowledged assumption.

How could it make any difference? An assumption has the effect it does, whether acknowledged or implicit.

[maryhelena]

Howdy, MH

Your problem is that the 'standard model' does not have a historical leg to stand on.

That's not my problem. It's an element of the task which you have voluntarily set yourself.

Regardless, the post sets the standard timeline aside, so it doesn't really matter whether it's well founded or not. We're looking at other things for the time being.

Unsurprisingly, Aretas III does look a lot better when Aretas IV's chief support is taken away.

Enough better? Not for me. But then, IV's handicapped win is not by a lot, either.

Your position is further based on the assumption of a historical NT Paul.

No. The situation of a historical Paul is isomorphic to that of a fictional character in an epistolary novel where references to Damascus are historical (so looking at a map is fair) and "Aretas" refers to a historical man (projected to 2 possibilities, as most seem willing to do for the sake of discussion).

Did Paul ... oops, I mean "the author of what we attribute to Paul" ... intend Aretas III or Aretas IV instead? Same analysis, doesn't change the confidence in the outcome. It's not worth saying all that over and over instead of simply saying Paul.

(no histrical evidence that this Nabataean ruler ever had any sort of control over Damascus)

Paul doesn't say that his Aretas had any sort of control over Damascus. At most, what he writes can fairly be construed as implying that Aretas could develop timely human intelligence about Paul's presence or departure from Damascus. That's all that's on the page.

That's not all that's on the page.

2 Corinthians 11:32 — New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (NASB95)
In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me,

Aretas had an ethnarch in Damascus. Indicating control of the city.

retreat from the Aretas problem of 2 Cor.11.32.33 and run with interpolation

OK, interpolation is the ever-present rival conjecture. One simply acknowledges the assumption that we are reading what the author intended and ... it makes no difference to the outcome on that acknowledged assumption.

How could it make any difference? An assumption has the effect it does, whether acknowledged or implicit.

I've nothing against assumptions as long as they connect with a historical event or person. As regards Aretas IV - no amount of assumptions will get him in control of Damascus. Historical fact - Aretas III controlled Damascus - therefore, assumptions are welcome as to how that historical fact relates to the NT narrative of it's Paul figure in Damascus.

At the end of the day the Paul historicists would be far better off attempting to make a case for interpolation. That way they can move on from their endless futile attempts to somehow or another get Aretas IV to having control of Damascus. Alternatively, simply assert that the Pauline writer made a mistake, that he got muddled up with his history. i.e. Aretas IV - the Aretas relevant to the NT timeline did not control Damascus - hence writer made a mix up with the earlier Aretas III who did control Damacus...... Problem gone - away with the fairies - and with it an opportunity to start to think outside the standard model of Christian origins.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Aretas had an ethnarch in Damascus.

The passage does not say that the ethnarch was in Damascus. A closely related issue was discussed in the blog post, the non-specificity of Paul's chosen verb which is often translated as "guarding."

Even under the narrowest conception of guarding (not a feature of Paul's choice of word), "Colonel Smith's lieutenant guarded the vault" is uninformative about where the lieutenant is situated relative to the vault, and about what lawful authority, if any, Colonel Smith has over the vault or it contents.

As regards Aretas IV - no amount of assumptions will get him in control of Damascus.

Nor did Paul say that his Aretas had such control.

Aretas III controlled Damascus - therefore, assumptions are welcome as to how that historical fact relates to the NT narrative of it's Paul figure in Damascus.

Yes, as mentioned in the post, it raises the question of why Paul might flee to the stronghold of somebody he was trying to avoid. That question doesn't even arise if Paul's adversary didn't control Damascus, as we seem to agree that Aretas IV never did (so far as anyone knows).

That way they can move on from their endless futile attempts to somehow or another get Aretas IV to having control of Damascus.

Aretas IV having control of Damascus would seem to make it harder, not easier, to explain what Paul was doing there. Explain we must, since Paul does not.

The passage says that Paul was there and implies that he wished to avoid an associate of Aretas. The passage does not say nor does it imply that Aretas's writ ran there. It eludes me how overturning that convenient combination of circumstances would help "Paul historicists."

[Jax]

I had such fun with the Aretases, that I posted about the puzzle on the blog.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... as-puzzle/

The basic findings presented there are:

(1) The wide-spread deep confidence that Aretas IV is Paul's King Aretas owes much to the more general confidence in the "standard model" timeline of Christian origins. Aretas IV fits; III doesn't. Fair enough, then, to ask how things would look without belief in the standard model.

(2) Paul doesn't say Aretas controls Damascus, and doesn't say that Aretas could arrest Paul within the city. Paul's only reported difficulty occurs when he leaves the city, with no reason given for his leaving. Once outside the city, Paul would be fair game for either Aretas, and might be taken by the Nabateans if they knew where an exposed Paul could be found.

(3) Aretas IV is at least a slightly better fit to Paul's story than his predecessor:

(a) Under IV, it makes sense that if Paul had offended Nabateans, then he might have sought refuge in a non-Nabatean city. Under III, it's harder (not impossible, just less obvious) to see how Paul ended up in a Nabatean stronghold, if he was fleeing the Nabateans in a region with so much non-Nabatean territory nearby.

(b) As brief as Paul's statement is, he manages to tell us twice in rapid succession that the story happened in Damascus. Under IV, Paul's choice of phrasing makes some sense, but under III, it's an avoidable lapse, in my view.

Conclude: Aretas IV on points, not a KO. The standard model survives.

It seems to me that in your Roman controlled Damascus model, all the ethnarc of Aretas IV had to do was approach whoever was in charge of the city and request Paul be handed over and pay whatever was needed to have this happen. The Romans would have no problem handing over a Jewish man to the Arabians for money.

When Tigranes II of Armenia invaded the area and captured Damascus away from the Arabians in 72 BCE however, the ethnarc of Aretas III would not have had this luxury and would have little recourse than to watch the city from outside its walls. Paul would remain safe inside the city as long as Tigranes II held it not so with a city ran by the Romans. In 69 BCE with Tigranes II vacating the city and Aretas III moving back in is where a Paul wanting to avoid the Arabians would need to escape imo.

[maryhelena]

Aretas had an ethnarch in Damascus.

The passage does not say that the ethnarch was in Damascus. A closely related issue was discussed in the blog post, the non-specificity of Paul's chosen verb which is often translated as "guarding."

So - Aretas has an ethnarch guarding the city of Damascus. While the Roman's controlled Damascus......

Even under the narrowest conception of guarding (not a feature of Paul's choice of word), "Colonel Smith's lieutenant guarded the vault" is uninformative about where the lieutenant is situated relative to the vault, and about what lawful authority, if any, Colonel Smith has over the vault or it contents.

So - Aretas has an ethnarch to guard Damascus - but the ethnarch is nowhere near Damascus.....

As regards Aretas IV - no amount of assumptions will get him in control of Damascus.

Nor did Paul say that his Aretas had such control.

Aretas III controlled Damascus - therefore, assumptions are welcome as to how that historical fact relates to the NT narrative of it's Paul figure in Damascus.

Yes, as mentioned in the post, it raises the question of why Paul might flee to the stronghold of somebody he was trying to avoid. That question doesn't even arise if Paul's adversary didn't control Damascus, as we seem to agree that Aretas IV never did (so far as anyone knows).

So - Aretas did not control Damascus and his ethnarch is not controlling Damascus.....

That way they can move on from their endless futile attempts to somehow or another get Aretas IV to having control of Damascus.

Aretas IV having control of Damascus would seem to make it harder, not easier, to explain what Paul was doing there. Explain we must, since Paul does not.

The passage says that Paul was there and implies that he wished to avoid an associate of Aretas. The passage does not say nor does it imply that Aretas's writ ran there. It eludes me how overturning that convenient combination of circumstances would help "Paul historicists."

So - Paul is running from the ethnarch of Aretas - an ethnarch that has no control in Damascus.....seems to me we are in the realm of cloak and dagger stuff....the ethnarch is not an ethnarch but simply a plain old hit man.

[Paul the Uncertain]

So - Aretas has an ethnarch guarding the city of Damascus. While the Roman's controlled Damascus.

Of course the Nabateans kept watch on Roman strongholds. Aretas IV wasn't a paranoid delusional: Roman troops marched on him, after he'd bloodied a Roman client princeling. Aretas dodged the bullet when Tiberias died, otherwise he might have been become yet another king the Romans stretched.

He wouldn't or shouldn't have thought to invest some assets to keep an eye on potential Roman staging points?

As hard a blower as he is, even Paul doesn't claim that the Nabateans were watching Damascus solely for the purpose of capturing him. Given that Nabatean intelligence operatives were watching Damascus, however, Paul felt the need to be discreet when leaving the city. The passage mentions no other time when Paul exerted himself to avoid Nabatean surveillance.

So - Aretas has an ethnarch to guard Damascus - but the ethnarch is nowhere near Damascus.....

The goalposts just moved. Your original claim was that the ethnarch was in Damascus. Apparently we've come to some tacit agreement that he might have been outside, for all Paul actually tells us.

Outside's not such a bad idea, either. Outside Damascus is a great place to catch up with Paul if Paul were recently seen leaving Damascus. But Paul hacked a way around that difficulty, which is what makes the story worth telling.

So - Aretas did not control Damascus and his ethnarch is not controlling Damascus.....

By Jove, you've got it! The rain is Spain falls mainly on the plain...

Sorry, different show.

So - Paul is running from the ethnarch of Aretas - an ethnarch that has no control in Damascus...

Which might explain why Paul went to Damascus. Paul doesn't tell us why and it's a fair question.

seems to me we are in the realm of cloak and dagger stuff....

Both of our Aretases used military force. So, yes, it would be extraordinary if either one failed to engage in "cloak and dagger stuff" at some point in their respective careers.

the ethnarch is not an ethnarch but simply a plain old hit man.

Could be, both of our Aretases visited violence upon their foes, and either one may have promoted those who displayed some skill at it.