Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by StephenGoranson »

Let me put it another way, ml; I am familiar with some of Bowersock's work, and I think it has merit.

mh, when you declared what (you imagined) all ancient historians think, I asume your proposed word "caterwallimg" was intended to be caterwauling.
More important that that minor word chiuce, though, is your baseless presumption that, say, Bowersock is not critical of ancient texts including NT.
Last edited by StephenGoranson on Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2188
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:57 am Let me put it another way, ml; I am familiar with some of bowersock's work, and I think it has merit.

mh, when you declared what (you imagined) all ancient historians think, I asume your proposed word "caterwallimg" was intended to be caterwauling.
More important that that minor word chiuce, though, is your baseless presumption that, say, Bowersock is not critical of ancient texts including NT.
Once again, grammer, spelling on the cards to be corrected by Stephan Goranson - while content is ignored. Context being, re 2 Cor.11.32 that an Aretas had control of Damascus. History only knows of one Aretas controlling Damascus - Aretas III.

Baseless assumption - I asked the question regarding his, or any of the others you mentioned, whether they were upholding the standard model of the NT timeline. If they are doing that - then my point stands - their position on 2 Cor. 11.32 could be compromised because of their faith position.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by StephenGoranson »

maryhelena,
It is true that if I say that your use of "grammer" is a misspelling of grammar, that is a very minor point. I am a very poor typist; I often make typo mistakes; I sometimes notice spellings because I am interested in some word origins (etymologies). OK, small potatoes.

It is not a minor point that people who read only English--and relatively little of that--are not qualified to evaluate much in detail about ancient history.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2188
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 5:12 am maryhelena,
It is true that if I say that your use of "grammer" is a misspelling of grammar, that is a very minor point. I am a very poor typist; I often make typo mistakes; I sometimes notice spellings because I am interested in some word origins (etymologies). OK, small potatoes.

It is not a minor point that people who read only English--and relatively little of that--are not qualified to evaluate much in detail about ancient history.
So now what - I only read English....give it a break Stephan.... :popcorn:
StephenGoranson
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by StephenGoranson »

If it is not true that you read only English, then, my mistake; I stand corrected.

More relevant, though, G. W. Bowersock--among other ancient historians--wrote and explained that Aretas IV could indeed have sent a ethnarch to try to capture Paul. Facts to which you, mh, seem oblivious.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2188
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 5:39 am If it is not true that you read only English, then, my mistake; I stand corrected.
Confirmed - I only read English.

More relevant, though, G. W. Bowersock--among other ancient historians--wrote and explained that Aretas IV could indeed have sent a ethnarch to try to capture Paul. Facts to which you, mh, seem oblivious.
''could indeed have'' is not a historical fact - it is speculation - not good enough to support an interpretation of 2 Cor.11.32 to be referencing Aretas IV as having some control over Damascus during the standard model TV tmeline.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by StephenGoranson »

To attempt to seize one person in Damascus did not require complete control of the city, is consistent with the rule of Aretas IV, is consistent with Nabataean resistance to Christianity and Paul, and has been discussed as such--with variations--by many ancient historians.

It seems to me relatively more plausible (and Occam-compatable) than imagining a BC/BCE Paul and/or a non-existing Paul.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1270
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by Jax »

maryhelena wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:49 am
StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:29 am Reisner and Campbell and Bowersock and others are ancient historians.

For example on Glen Bowersock, excerpted from current Wikipedia:

Bowersock has served as lecturer in ancient history at Balliol, Magdalen, and New College, Oxford (1960–62), Professor of Classics and History, Harvard University (1962–80) (full Professor from 1969). Bowersock was Professor of Ancient History at the Institute for Advanced Study from 1980 until his retirement in 2006. He is the author of over a dozen books and has published over 400 articles on Greek, Roman, and Near Eastern history and culture as well as the classical tradition.

Bowersock formerly served as Professor of Classics and History at Harvard University. During his career at Harvard (1962 to 1980), he served as Professor of Classics and History; Chairman of the Classics Department; and Associate Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 1989, he was elected to membership in the American Philosophical Society, the oldest learned society in the United States, dating to 1743.[1]

Bowersock has received numerous honorary degrees, including: University of Strasbourg (Sciences Humaines), Docteur honoris causa (1990), Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Paris), Docteur honoris causa (1999), University of Athens, Doctor honoris causa (2005). He is also an Honorary Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford (2004) at which he was once a Rhodes Scholar.

Bowersock was awarded the James Henry Breasted Prize of the American Historical Association for his book Hellenism in Late Antiquity. A symposium in his honor was held at Princeton University on April 7, 2006, under the title East and West: A Conference in Honor of Glen W. Bowersock, the proceedings of which were published by the Harvard University Press in 2008.

He is a Foreign Member of the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei in Italy, Associé étranger de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and Foreign Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
So.... the question to ask is are those proposing that Aretas IV had control over Damascus upholding the standard NT Pauline timeline. .If so, then impartiality regarding 2.Cor.II.32 is questioned. Letting go of assumptions regarding Aretas IV brings into play the standard model NT timeline......perhaps something Christian historians might struggle with. Faith is a very strong inhibitor.....
And then some idiot will propose an Aretas V out of thin air. It's sad really the lengths these fundies go to to support their Jesus is real fantasy.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2188
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:10 am To attempt to seize one person in Damascus did not require complete control of the city, is consistent with the rule of Aretas IV, is consistent with Nabataean resistance to Christianity and Paul, and has been discussed as such--with variations--by many ancient historians.

It seems to me relatively more plausible (and Occam-compatable) than imagining a BC/BCE Paul and/or a non-existing Paul.
So - it's cloak and dagger stuff - Aretas IV sending his henchman to Damascus to seize Paul.....oh, and not complete control of Damascus.....methinks, desperation of those wanting to stick with the NT Pauline timeframe.....

oh well - each to their own.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1270
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by Jax »

StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:10 am To attempt to seize one person in Damascus did not require complete control of the city, is consistent with the rule of Aretas IV, is consistent with Nabataean resistance to Christianity and Paul, and has been discussed as such--with variations--by many ancient historians.

It seems to me relatively more plausible (and Occam-compatable) than imagining a BC/BCE Paul and/or a non-existing Paul.
Only if you're a believer. Personally, I just see more actual evidence for a BCE Paul. But then I don't have a historical Jesus of the Gospels to prop up.
Post Reply