Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 2:13 aml However, Aretas still has to be dealt with.... ;)
Dubourg notes, talking about the fate of John the Baptist and his being a midrash from Book of Esther, that "Aretas", the name of the punisher of Herod in the real History, is a perfect anagram of "Esther" in Hebrew. In the same time, "Esther" is anagram of "prison". Hence, by transitivity, "Aretas" is anagram of "prison", too.

Was Paul escaping from the "prison" and his guard?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Carrier's article, linked to in first post to this thread, ends with this:

How Do We Know the Apostle Paul Wrote His Epistles in the 50s A.D.?

Conclusion:

I don’t consider this matter as settled as mainstream scholars do. Paul’s Epistles do fit remarkably well the 50s B.C. “Eastern” chronology. But all the best and earliest evidence, as compromised as it is, weighs considerably toward the 50s A.D. “Western” chronology. Maybe not as decisively as I’d like. But I can only work with what’s most probable. Speculation is idle. It simply isn’t valid historical reasoning to pick as a premise the less probable fact and build elaborate theories from there. Any such enterprise always suffers from that initial epistemic improbability, and there is no point in arguing for what is, in fact, the less probable. There is also no real use in speculating a 70s BC origin for Christianity. It changes very little with regard to, for example, the historicity of Jesus. Whether the tale be that he was crucified by Pilate in Jerusalem under the Romans or stoned by the Sanhedrin in Joppa under the Hasmoneans, it’s still a historical man, or the Euhemerization of a celestial one. Our Gospels and Acts are still so mythical as to be useless as history. And so on. Since currently the preponderance of evidence weighs for a 30s A.D. origin instead, we may as well just stick with that until someone can prove it’s incorrect. And no one yet has.

Carrier is working from the premise of a historical Paul. However, since there was no Aretas IV controlling Damascus during the 30s Aretas IV cannot be used to date the NT figure of Paul. The simplest solution out of this problem is to suggest that the Pauline writers mixed up Aretas III with Aretas IV. This simple solution would put aside all the many futile attempts to get Aretas IV in control of Damascus during the 30s. Why don't the Jesus historicists want to consider this ? One reason could be that Aretas IV is one method of dating Paul. The Pauline writers don't say how many years after the JC crucifixion that Paul's conversion took place. Adding a historical personage to the story would highlight a timeframe for their story. However, in the case of Aretas they left his identity ambiguous - thus allowing Paul's chronology to be undetermined.

Not happy with an undetermined chronology for Paul, the writers of Acts tried using another historical figure. Agrippa I. However, they decided not to name this king. Instead, in their story prior to the meeting between Paul and Peter in Jerusalem, they refer to this king by the name of King Herod. That they wanted their King Herod to be identified as Agrippa I is evidenced by their quoting Josephus. A rather about the houses way of identifying their King Herod as Agrippa I. Particularly so as Agrippa never used the title King Herod on his coins. Particularly also as later on Acts has Paul appear before Agrippa II and Berniece.

The Peter in prison story is questionable in the context of Agrippa I - as re Josephus, Agrippa had been himself in prison. Peter's miraculous escape via a visit of an angel seems more reminiscent of the story about the baby Jesus escaping from King Herod after an intervention by an angel. Again, Agrippa's alleged persecution of the church is more reminiscent of King Herod's killing of the Hasmoneans in 37 b.c. Consequently, there is nothing in the Peter and King Herod story - reset in the time of Agrippa I - that leads to any conclusion re dating Paul.

So, we have in 2 Cor. 11. 32. Aretas III in control of Damascus until about 63 b.c. We have King Herod linked to Agrippa I in Acts 12. A story, apart from the prison context, more reminiscent of King Herod rather than Agrippa I. Hence, the death of Agrippa, re Josephus, to around 44/45 c.e. cannot be used to date Paul.

But Acts has not given up in dating Paul. Acts ch.25 has Paul appear before King Agrippa II and Bernice. Consensus dating (re Wikipedia) has Agrippa II made King in 53 c.e. His death is dated somewhere between 92 and 100 c.e.

From Aretas III controlling Damascus until around 63 b.c. to the death of Agrippa II there is over 160 years. These are the years not for a historical Paul but for a literary Paul. Paul the paper apostle. Indicating that it was these years that laid the foundation for what became Christianity. That's the time frame indicated by the NT. The internal history of these years is relevant to the development of Christianity - and that history includes Hasmonean history.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:58 am
maryhelena wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 2:13 aml However, Aretas still has to be dealt with.... ;)
Dubourg notes, talking about the fate of John the Baptist and his being a midrash from Book of Esther, that "Aretas", the name of the punisher of Herod in the real History, is a perfect anagram of "Esther" in Hebrew. In the same time, "Esther" is anagram of "prison". Hence, by transitivity, "Aretas" is anagram of "prison", too.

Was Paul escaping from the "prison" and his guard?
Finding some significance in names is all very well.....but we still have to deal with Aretas III in control of Damascus until about 63 b.c.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Interesting, a comment on Carrier's blog re the Hasmonean civil war in connection with Aretas III.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18613


BART WILLRUTH

Why would Aretas III be after Paul, if that were actually the case? I will address this in brief here. It wouldn’t require the issue to be over Christianity or religion. Politics moves events at least as effectively as religious contention. In the period leading up to the Roman conquest of Damascus, there were two royal brothers vying for the crown of Judea, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. There was actually a civil war over the issue. One of the factions supporting Hyrcanus for kingship was the Pharisee party (a religio-political party). They provided thousands of soldiers in his army. Aretas III allied himself with Hyrcanus and the Pharisees. After a defeat, the Pharisees found asylum with Aretas III before continuing their fight against the forces of Aristobulus. Aretas joined the fight. During this turmoil, there was a constant shift of fighters from one side to the other, making for political instability which threatened not only Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, but also Aretas III. Negotiations between the parties were taking place in Damascus. When the Romans came into Damascus, both brothers sent delegations to get Roman backing for kingship. Aristobulus won. Aretas lost control of Damascus for the last time. What does this have to do with Paul? Paul self identifies as a Pharisee in Phil 3:5. We shouldn’t simply assume that this indicates that he was a member of the group caricatured in the gospels. Remember, this was a political party in the 1st century BC which fielded soldiers. Paul indicates a three year stay in Arabia (Aretas domain). There is no reason to assume that Aretas, either III or IV, would have been chasing a Jewish preacher in Damascus, but there is every reason to do so for political reasons if Paul had been involved with the Pharisees allied with Aretas III and had been involved in intrigue (changing sides) during the civil war and the negotiations between Hyrcaus and Aristobulus.

Here is an example of the apologetic defense for Aretas IV and its problems:

Christian scholars have always seized on the identity of Paul’s Aretas as Aretas IV and have used that internal historical marker in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians to give him a certain timeline. As such it is the only clear historical marker within Paul’s writings to a specific person known to secular history.

The comment then goes on to deal with some other historical situations.

Richard Carrier's reply:

“Consistent with” is not “evidence for.” That’s a possibiliter fallacy (“Possibly this, therefore probably this”). That’s not legitimate historical reasoning. Legitimate historical reasoning follows the preponderance of evidence; not just whatever you can make fit it.

This is why one cannot argue “it can’t be Aretas IV,” because there are several reasons it could be, and no evidence rules it out, and even some coincidences supporting it (there are no good arguments from silence here, as I point out). And since you can’t rule that out, you can’t “rule in” Aretas III. The preponderance of evidence beyond this point carries.

Whereas to fabricate an entire elaborate narrative for which there is no evidence, is simply not history at all. That’s mythmaking. I do history. Not mythmaking.

It’s only the worse that you are basing conclusions on false facts. Illyricum was established as a Roman province in 27 B.C. as a public (i.e. Senatorial) province then reorganized around 11 A.D. as an imperial (i.e. consular) province, and continued as such beyond the Jewish War. The Oxford Classical Dictionary entry even lists a papyrus military diploma we’ve recovered declaring a soldier’s appointment to “Illyricum” in 60 A.D. And the region was so-called long before and after even that. I have no idea who told you otherwise. The actual borders of the official province changed over time, but it wasn’t until much later it lost that official provincial name. But even after that, as also before the region was made into a formal province, the region continued to be so called. The OCD lists abundant evidence of all these facts. So that datum gives us no information about when Paul wrote.

Goodness - 'several reasons it could be' - Aretas IV. - Only if one hold to the idea of a historical Paul. That is the only reason. There is only conjecture and speculation regarding an Aretas IV having some sort of rule of Damascus in the 30s.

Why Carrier is holding on to the idea of a historical Paul is strange. Methinks that's probably the prime reason he has not been able to move forward the ahistorict arguments over the NT. Banging on about a Jesus being from outer-space won't move the search for early christian origins forward. Oh well - the Christian's can't let go of a historical Jesus and Carrier can't let go of a historical Paul. Ironic really - the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind....

Yep, let go of the futile attempts to have Aretas IV having control of Damascus in the 30s - and the whole issue of Paul's historicity has to be faced....
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Bart Willruth introduction to his comment on Carrier's blog. July 18, 2021

I have studied this issue for years and will briefly comment.

First, I take issue with giving weight to the 50’s AD timeline simply because that has traditionally
been the accepted dating. Using a date for a possible historical Jesus as an argument for a post 30’s
dating is as tenuous as the likelihood of that historicity; an event which you find to have little
plausibility. I don’t want to readdress the reasons to doubt that historicity, since you have already done
so far more effectively than anyone else.

Over many years, another commentator interested in Aretas...

How do we date the Pauline corpus from scratch?

Post by spin » Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm

https://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sh ... l?t=135877

I've seen people bandying about dates for the dating of Paul, but I don't know of any grounds for saying that Paul must have written before or after a certain time or event.

There is a reference already looked at here I think which talks of Paul being sought by the "ethnarch under Aretas the king" (2 Cor 11:32) -- a very strange reference indeed when one considers that an Aretas had control of Damascus when the Romans arrived in Syria circa 65 BCE and took direct control of Syria including Damascus (Pompey met the disputants for the Jerusalem throne in Damascus in 64 BCE), though they lost it temporarily to the Parthians around 39 BCE but regained it quickly. The Nabataeans never actually challenged Rome and at worst caused Herod Antipas difficulties with their occupation of part of Peraea. So this event mentioned in 2 Cor 11:32 is very strange indeed.

Has anyone got any surefire dating indications from the Pauline corpus or have any light to shed on this strange comment regarding Aretas and Damascus which would ostenxibly put Paul there before 65 BCE?

This question is stimulated by trying to see what the initial foundations are for christian development.

spin

A more recent spin post regarding Aretas.........Aretas and Nazareth seem to be two of spin's hot topics....

here

The assumptions expressed in the link provided above give no heed to a number of issues. First, the report of Josephus concerning these extraordinary ethnarchs in AJ 19.283 does not agree with what Philo says, In Flacc. 74, that a council of elders was appointed by Augustus to manage Jewish affairs after the death of the genarch. It would seem that Josephus got it wrong. Second, the report of this "ethnarch" deals specifically with the Jews and can in no way be associated appointments by Aretas IV present in Damascus. Third, the Jews were inside the Roman empire, while the Nabataeans were not and had no political existence inside the empire, especially in the few years between the war with Herod Antipas and the death of Aretas. It is therefore certainly not very plausible that Aretas had an official agent of any sort in or around Roman controlled Damascus, let alone one between 37 and 40 CE. Perhaps you might like to move Paul's activities earlier.

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

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

From the OP post.

From an historicists position on Paul an A.D. date presents problems - hence the desire to provide arguments for an A.D. dating for Aretas IV to have had some sort control over Damascus.


Correction -

From an historicists position on Paul a B. C. date presents problems - hence the desire to provide argument for an A.D. dating for Aretas IV to have had some sort control over Damascus.

Sometimes one needs a proofreader....
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Bart Willruth comment on Carrier's blog

The historian is left with the fact that there is no data of any kind which would indicate that Aretas IV had control over Damascus in the first century CE, nor why the king of Arabia would be trying to kill Paul. Christianity in the 30’s CE, if it existed at all, could not have been deemed a threat to the Kingdom of Arabia, enough to cause Aretas to put out a warrant for the arrest of a simple preacher in Damascus. When all else fails, the objective historian must release his invalid preconceptions and examine other possibilities, no matter how distasteful.

Quite a challenge to Carrier: ...''the objective historian must release his invalid preconceptions and examine other possibilities, no matter how distasteful.''

For someone, like Carrier, who has challenged the idea of a historical JC - and yet continues to use the gospel dating structure for an historical Paul - crazy stuff. (i.e. Paul's conversion is linked to the JC gospel story dating structure.) It's almost as though some mythicists are denying the full consequences of the ahistoricsts position. Brodie had the courage to face the issue - Jesus and Paul go together like a horse and carriage. Two peas in the same pod: A NT allegory dealing with the development of early christian history. An origin story - not a story of the historical roots of early christianity.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe/JOSENRAEL has posted to Carrier's blog.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18613

Note that as the fugue of the two explorers prefigured the coming Joshua in Jericho, so the fugue of the ‘explorer’ from Damascus Paul prefigures the coming of Jesus/Joshua.

The evidence of a historical connection Paul/Aretas would disappear.


Wishful think Giuseppe re the Paul/Aretas connection disappearing......

What is interesting though is Carrier's response:

Richard Carrier: It’s more the other way around: Paul is himself making that comparison. That was common in ancient rhetoric. Many a real event is described with allusion to a comparable mythological event in a shared literature. That’s indeed even how writers like Paul would have been taught to write in school. Consequently, nothing can be inferred from that about historicity. The only detail that doesn’t derive from the allusion is the detail that connects with actual history: that the ethnarch of Aretas was after him. That he doesn’t say why is actually evidence that that really happened; a forger inventing a story would elaborate. Only a real person would leave out all the key details assuming his readers knew the rest. Which means his readers had to be the Corinthians. There isn’t anyone else who could know the story. Not even readers of Acts would (as it doesn’t mention this detail). So there must have been a real story.

It must have been a real story because Paul does not say why the ethnarch of Aretas was after him i.e. Paul's readers would know the details. Has Carrier lost the plot? ''I do history. Not mythmaking.'' said Carrier in response to an earlier comment.

(my formatting)

Oh well, it seems that like the Jesus historicists, Carrier has a blind spot also - regarding the NT figure of Paul.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by Giuseppe »

I have found also:

The name Esther comes from the Aramaic word sihara meaning moon. The Talmud says that the nations of the world called the heroine of Purim by the name Esther since she was as beautiful as the moon (Megilla 13a).

https://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Esther_and_t ... mobile=yes
The Rabbis relate to Esther as the one responsible for the deliverance of Israel and compare her to the moon, which shone for Israel in the darkness of night. Like the moon, that is “born” after thirty days, Esther, too, said (Esth. 4:11): “Now I have not been summoned to visit the king for the last thirty days” (Ex. Rabbah 15:6).

https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/es ... nd-aggadah


the meaning of Jericho is "city of the moon".

Esther is anagram of Aretas in Hebrew.

I don't know what to do with that.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:27 pm I have found also:

The name Esther comes from the Aramaic word sihara meaning moon. The Talmud says that the nations of the world called the heroine of Purim by the name Esther since she was as beautiful as the moon (Megilla 13a).

https://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Esther_and_t ... mobile=yes
The Rabbis relate to Esther as the one responsible for the deliverance of Israel and compare her to the moon, which shone for Israel in the darkness of night. Like the moon, that is “born” after thirty days, Esther, too, said (Esth. 4:11): “Now I have not been summoned to visit the king for the last thirty days” (Ex. Rabbah 15:6).

https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/es ... nd-aggadah


the meaning of Jericho is "city of the moon".

Esther is anagram of Aretas in Hebrew.

I don't know what to do with that.
Perhaps put it to one side and concentrate on history. While word definitions can help in recognizing biblical illusions they won't help a historical research. History is one thing - what the NT writers found to be meaningful in that history is another matter altogether. First we get the history right - as far as that is possible. Then we can start with attempts to understand what it was within that history that the NT writers found to be meaningful to their NT story. Going the route of 'it's all in the mind' with no relevance to the social/political context in which the NT writers wrote - well - that route goes around in never ending circles. The windmills of the mind - something like that. To deny the Jewish NT writers their own historical methods - history entwinned with interpretation and meaning - seems illogical to me.

Preface to the War of the Jews Chapter 1. Par 6

...many Jews before me have composed the histories of our ancestors very exactly; as have some of the Greeks done it also, and have translated our histories into their own tongue, and have not much mistaken the truth in their histories. But then, where the writers of these affairs and our prophets leave off, thence shall I take my rise, and begin my history.

Post Reply