I have also pointed out that Aretas III lost control of Damascus for three years to Tigranes II which might be why Paul was there, as a safe haven from Aretas III. Paul just had to escape from the city when Aretas III regained control of the city and then hightail it to Jerusalem as a layover before going as far away from Aretas as possible, Syria and then Cilicia.maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:58 amIrish1975 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:14 amCan you say more about these problems?maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:52 am 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.
Carrier: The question we want to answer here is which Aretas is this? There are only two possibilities that fit any other historical facts to what Paul describes: Aretas the IV (ruler of Nabataea from 9 B.C. to 40 A.D.); or Aretas III (likewise, from 87 to 62 B.C.).
Aretas the IV (ruler of Nabataea from 9 B.C. to 40 A.D.); or Aretas III (likewise, from 87 to 62 B.C.).
If one goes with Aretas IV - then arguments are proposed for this Aretas IV to have some connection to Damascus in A.D. Arguments not supported by historical evidence.
Instead of arguments over Aretas IV being in control of Damascus during the NT time frame - Pilate - one could maintain the NT writers had their time frame wrong re Aretas and Damascus - i.e. they mixed up Aretas IV with Aretas III. That would allow a historicist view of the NT Paul. However, it seems the Paul historicists would rather make historical arguments devoid of historical evidence.
Historical evidence puts Aretas III in control of Damascus until about 63 b.c.
That is the only established date for an Aretas controlling Damascus.
Hence, if it's the historical Jewish roots to early christian origins that we seek - this date needs to be seriously considered. If it means that the NT Paul is not a historical figure then, like Brodie, I will consider that option as an approach to Paul and Damascus.
As it stands, the current arguments of Aretas IV are not conclusive.
Carrier: I don’t consider this matter as settled as mainstream scholars do...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, Aretas and Damascus
Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2949
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus
Jax wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:17 amI have also pointed out that Aretas III lost control of Damascus for three years to Tigranes II which might be why Paul was there, as a safe haven from Aretas III. Paul just had to escape from the city when Aretas III regained control of the city and then hightail it to Jerusalem as a layover before going as far away from Aretas as possible, Syria and then Cilicia.maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:58 amIrish1975 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:14 amCan you say more about these problems?maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:52 am 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.
Carrier: The question we want to answer here is which Aretas is this? There are only two possibilities that fit any other historical facts to what Paul describes: Aretas the IV (ruler of Nabataea from 9 B.C. to 40 A.D.); or Aretas III (likewise, from 87 to 62 B.C.).
Aretas the IV (ruler of Nabataea from 9 B.C. to 40 A.D.); or Aretas III (likewise, from 87 to 62 B.C.).
If one goes with Aretas IV - then arguments are proposed for this Aretas IV to have some connection to Damascus in A.D. Arguments not supported by historical evidence.
Instead of arguments over Aretas IV being in control of Damascus during the NT time frame - Pilate - one could maintain the NT writers had their time frame wrong re Aretas and Damascus - i.e. they mixed up Aretas IV with Aretas III. That would allow a historicist view of the NT Paul. However, it seems the Paul historicists would rather make historical arguments devoid of historical evidence.
Historical evidence puts Aretas III in control of Damascus until about 63 b.c.
That is the only established date for an Aretas controlling Damascus.
Hence, if it's the historical Jewish roots to early christian origins that we seek - this date needs to be seriously considered. If it means that the NT Paul is not a historical figure then, like Brodie, I will consider that option as an approach to Paul and Damascus.
As it stands, the current arguments of Aretas IV are not conclusive.
Carrier: I don’t consider this matter as settled as mainstream scholars do...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.
![](http://earlywritings.com/forum/images/icons/misc/wikipedia.gif)
Nabataean rule of Damascus was interrupted in 72 BCE by a successful siege led by the Armenian king Tigranes II. Armenian rule of the city ended in 69 BCE when Tigranes' forces were pulled out to deal with a Roman attack on the Armenian capital, allowing Aretas to re-take the city.
I don't think this says anything about why Aretas III would be wanting to hunt Paul. As Carrier said in his article :
It’s important to note that Paul never does tell us why Aretas or his ethnarch were hunting him. And whether Paul is writing in the 50s B.C. or A.D. we still can’t reconstruct why that would be.
So....the mystery remains...
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus
It is curious...
I am searching (apparently in vain) for a midrashical solution for the mention of Aretas in Paul: a serious obstacle for Dubourg's theory.
Carrier appears to be correct that probably the mention of Aretas is genuine (I should read a case or interpolation, also).
Even so, I find curious that if Doudna's case for Aretas V is considered as persuasive, then the entire certainty shown by Carrier for the authenticity of the mention becomes a case for Paul being in action during the First Jewish Revolt and his identity with the Herodian gangster Saul mentioned by Josephus (in effect cascade, for historical Jesus being Jesus b. Sapphat).
The irony is that Carrier is so aggressive against not only Doudna, but also against Paul George (mentioned with respect by Greg in his article).
I am searching (apparently in vain) for a midrashical solution for the mention of Aretas in Paul: a serious obstacle for Dubourg's theory.
Carrier appears to be correct that probably the mention of Aretas is genuine (I should read a case or interpolation, also).
Even so, I find curious that if Doudna's case for Aretas V is considered as persuasive, then the entire certainty shown by Carrier for the authenticity of the mention becomes a case for Paul being in action during the First Jewish Revolt and his identity with the Herodian gangster Saul mentioned by Josephus (in effect cascade, for historical Jesus being Jesus b. Sapphat).
The irony is that Carrier is so aggressive against not only Doudna, but also against Paul George (mentioned with respect by Greg in his article).
Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus
The only clue that I can think of is that Paul makes the claim of being in the East before returning to Damascus. If Paul was some kind of mercenary then maybe he had a price on his head. Pure speculation, but there it is. All we do know is that in his letters, Paul claims to have gone out East, returned to Damascus for three years, escaped the city to avoid the ethnarc of a Aretas, and then got as far away from Damascus and Arabia as possible as quickly as possible. If he is writing about Aretas III then the three years in Damascus fits well with the occupation of the city by Tigranes II as well as the escape from the city when the city was passing back into control of Aretas III.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:11 amJax wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:17 amI have also pointed out that Aretas III lost control of Damascus for three years to Tigranes II which might be why Paul was there, as a safe haven from Aretas III. Paul just had to escape from the city when Aretas III regained control of the city and then hightail it to Jerusalem as a layover before going as far away from Aretas as possible, Syria and then Cilicia.maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:58 amIrish1975 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:14 amCan you say more about these problems?maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:52 am 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.
Carrier: The question we want to answer here is which Aretas is this? There are only two possibilities that fit any other historical facts to what Paul describes: Aretas the IV (ruler of Nabataea from 9 B.C. to 40 A.D.); or Aretas III (likewise, from 87 to 62 B.C.).
Aretas the IV (ruler of Nabataea from 9 B.C. to 40 A.D.); or Aretas III (likewise, from 87 to 62 B.C.).
If one goes with Aretas IV - then arguments are proposed for this Aretas IV to have some connection to Damascus in A.D. Arguments not supported by historical evidence.
Instead of arguments over Aretas IV being in control of Damascus during the NT time frame - Pilate - one could maintain the NT writers had their time frame wrong re Aretas and Damascus - i.e. they mixed up Aretas IV with Aretas III. That would allow a historicist view of the NT Paul. However, it seems the Paul historicists would rather make historical arguments devoid of historical evidence.
Historical evidence puts Aretas III in control of Damascus until about 63 b.c.
That is the only established date for an Aretas controlling Damascus.
Hence, if it's the historical Jewish roots to early christian origins that we seek - this date needs to be seriously considered. If it means that the NT Paul is not a historical figure then, like Brodie, I will consider that option as an approach to Paul and Damascus.
As it stands, the current arguments of Aretas IV are not conclusive.
Carrier: I don’t consider this matter as settled as mainstream scholars do...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.
Aretas III
Nabataean rule of Damascus was interrupted in 72 BCE by a successful siege led by the Armenian king Tigranes II. Armenian rule of the city ended in 69 BCE when Tigranes' forces were pulled out to deal with a Roman attack on the Armenian capital, allowing Aretas to re-take the city.
I don't think this says anything about why Aretas III would be wanting to hunt Paul. As Carrier said in his article :
It’s important to note that Paul never does tell us why Aretas or his ethnarch were hunting him. And whether Paul is writing in the 50s B.C. or A.D. we still can’t reconstruct why that would be.
So....the mystery remains...![]()
A BCE timeline for Paul would work well with an executed Antigonus II in 37 BCE as well imo.
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2949
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus
Bottom line, Giuseppe, is that there was only one Aretas in control of Damascus - and that was Aretas III. I don't think the Pauline writer made a mistake. History is what it is - Aretas III controlled Damascus. Yes, the text is ambiguous but only if one holds to a historical Paul following shortly after the crucifixion of the gospel Jesus. So - don't read the gospel Jesus story into Paul's story. Particularly so for people who hold to the Pauline writings being prior to the gospel Jesus story.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:09 am It is curious...
I am searching (apparently in vain) for a midrashical solution for the mention of Aretas in Paul: a serious obstacle for Dubourg's theory.
Carrier appears to be correct that probably the mention of Aretas is genuine (I should read a case or interpolation, also).
Even so, I find curious that if Doudna's case for Aretas V is considered as persuasive, then the entire certainty shown by Carrier for the authenticity of the mention becomes a case for Paul being in action during the First Jewish Revolt and his identity with the Herodian gangster Saul mentioned by Josephus (in effect cascade, for historical Jesus being Jesus b. Sapphat).
Josephus has two stories relating to Aretas III and Aretas IV. Aretas III led a Nabatean force against Aristobulus II around 64/63 b.c. Aretas IV led a Nabatean force against Herod (Antipas) around 36/37 c..e. One campaign was unsuccessful and the other one was successful. The second Nabatean campaign occurred in the time frame usually given to the conversion of the apostle Paul. However, from an ahistoricist position on the gospel Jesus, attempts to connected Paul to the gospel Jesus time frame is illogical. That time frame being linked to the 15th year of Tiberius.
With the link between Paul and the gospel Jesus time frame broken, questions then arise as not only what time frame in which to put Paul - but also questions as to his historicity. Placing Paul post 70 c.e. is an attempt to avoid the issue of Paul's historicity. 2 Cor. 11.33 has placed Paul in Damascus when an Aretas had control of the city. That was Aretas III. That control was lost around 64/63 b.c.
Obviously, it's not possible for Paul to have been hunted by Aretas III sometime prior to 64/63 b.c. and also been preaching to the Gentiles post 70 c.e. It seem evident then that the ambiguity in 2 Cor.11.32.33 was there to serve a purpose:
1) it links Paul to the loss of Hasmonean sovereignty in 63 b.c. (Aretas III)
2) it attempts to link Paul with a conversion experience shortly after the crucifixion of the gospel Jesus in the time of Tiberius and Pilate. (Aretas IV died in 40 c.e.)
3) it leaves open the possibility that Paul was active post 70 c.e. (there being no logical link between Paul's conversion and the gospel Jesus and the 15th year of Tiberius timeframe.)
So - by linking Paul with an Aretas, the Pauline writer has stretched out a far longer period of history than that centered around the 15th year of Tiberius. A far longer stretch of history which would suggest that the NT figure of Paul is a literary figure not a historical figure. Paul is the paper apostle, a literary figure used to, as it were, mark the historical spots that were relevant to the Jewish roots of early christianity.
Attempts to argue for a 70 c.e. origin story for christianity fails to take into account the Jewish roots that gave that movement life. In other words: Post 70 c.e. and the Jewish Christian movement is on the way to adulthood. It's birth pangs were the traumatic and tragic loss of Hasmonean sovereignty in 63 b.c.
Yep, Carrier is a tough nut to crack - but methinks there is a weakness there and sooner or later the cracks in Carrier's approach to the Jesus and Paul story will widen.The irony is that Carrier is so aggressive against not only Doudna, but also against Paul George (mentioned with respect by Greg in his article).
Last edited by maryhelena on Sun Aug 01, 2021 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2949
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus
Yep, linking Paul to an Aretas III timeframe allows all Hasmonean history to play it's part in the philosophical development of what became Jewish Christianity - i.e. Jewish followers of a spiritual/philosophical christ figure. - as apposed to Herodian temple worship.Jax wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:34 amThe only clue that I can think of is that Paul makes the claim of being in the East before returning to Damascus. If Paul was some kind of mercenary then maybe he had a price on his head. Pure speculation, but there it is. All we do know is that in his letters, Paul claims to have gone out East, returned to Damascus for three years, escaped the city to avoid the ethnarc of a Aretas, and then got as far away from Damascus and Arabia as possible as quickly as possible. If he is writing about Aretas III then the three years in Damascus fits well with the occupation of the city by Tigranes II as well as the escape from the city when the city was passing back into control of Aretas III.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:11 amJax wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:17 amI have also pointed out that Aretas III lost control of Damascus for three years to Tigranes II which might be why Paul was there, as a safe haven from Aretas III. Paul just had to escape from the city when Aretas III regained control of the city and then hightail it to Jerusalem as a layover before going as far away from Aretas as possible, Syria and then Cilicia.maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:58 amCarrier: The question we want to answer here is which Aretas is this? There are only two possibilities that fit any other historical facts to what Paul describes: Aretas the IV (ruler of Nabataea from 9 B.C. to 40 A.D.); or Aretas III (likewise, from 87 to 62 B.C.).
Aretas the IV (ruler of Nabataea from 9 B.C. to 40 A.D.); or Aretas III (likewise, from 87 to 62 B.C.).
If one goes with Aretas IV - then arguments are proposed for this Aretas IV to have some connection to Damascus in A.D. Arguments not supported by historical evidence.
Instead of arguments over Aretas IV being in control of Damascus during the NT time frame - Pilate - one could maintain the NT writers had their time frame wrong re Aretas and Damascus - i.e. they mixed up Aretas IV with Aretas III. That would allow a historicist view of the NT Paul. However, it seems the Paul historicists would rather make historical arguments devoid of historical evidence.
Historical evidence puts Aretas III in control of Damascus until about 63 b.c.
That is the only established date for an Aretas controlling Damascus.
Hence, if it's the historical Jewish roots to early christian origins that we seek - this date needs to be seriously considered. If it means that the NT Paul is not a historical figure then, like Brodie, I will consider that option as an approach to Paul and Damascus.
As it stands, the current arguments of Aretas IV are not conclusive.
Carrier: I don’t consider this matter as settled as mainstream scholars do...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.
Aretas III
Nabataean rule of Damascus was interrupted in 72 BCE by a successful siege led by the Armenian king Tigranes II. Armenian rule of the city ended in 69 BCE when Tigranes' forces were pulled out to deal with a Roman attack on the Armenian capital, allowing Aretas to re-take the city.
I don't think this says anything about why Aretas III would be wanting to hunt Paul. As Carrier said in his article :
It’s important to note that Paul never does tell us why Aretas or his ethnarch were hunting him. And whether Paul is writing in the 50s B.C. or A.D. we still can’t reconstruct why that would be.
So....the mystery remains...![]()
A BCE timeline for Paul would work well with an executed Antigonus II in 37 BCE as well imo.
Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus
For your knowledge, a famous scholar (I don't name him) has judged "entirely convincing" the Doudna's hypothesis about Aretas V.
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2949
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus
Whether or not there was an Aretas V in Petra - another matter altogether to have an Aretas V controlling Damascus.
Trying to salvage 2 Cor. 11.32.33 as applying to an Aretas V prior to 70 c.e. - and controlling Damascus - is to avoid the elephant in the room. We already have an Aretas III controlling Damascus....that is recorded history i.e. Aretas III issued coins in Damascus.
![](http://earlywritings.com/forum/images/icons/misc/wikipedia.gif)
He ordered the mints of Damascus to produce the first silver Nabataean coins, in a Hellenic style and lettering his name in the Greek language instead of Nabatean Aramaic.
Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus
Mary, have you ever read any of my stuff investigating the possibility of Paul in a BCE setting? Would be happy to link you if you're interested.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 7:06 amYep, linking Paul to an Aretas III timeframe allows all Hasmonean history to play it's part in the philosophical development of what became Jewish Christianity - i.e. Jewish followers of a spiritual/philosophical christ figure. - as apposed to Herodian temple worship.Jax wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:34 amThe only clue that I can think of is that Paul makes the claim of being in the East before returning to Damascus. If Paul was some kind of mercenary then maybe he had a price on his head. Pure speculation, but there it is. All we do know is that in his letters, Paul claims to have gone out East, returned to Damascus for three years, escaped the city to avoid the ethnarc of a Aretas, and then got as far away from Damascus and Arabia as possible as quickly as possible. If he is writing about Aretas III then the three years in Damascus fits well with the occupation of the city by Tigranes II as well as the escape from the city when the city was passing back into control of Aretas III.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:11 amJax wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:17 amI have also pointed out that Aretas III lost control of Damascus for three years to Tigranes II which might be why Paul was there, as a safe haven from Aretas III. Paul just had to escape from the city when Aretas III regained control of the city and then hightail it to Jerusalem as a layover before going as far away from Aretas as possible, Syria and then Cilicia.maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:58 am
Carrier: The question we want to answer here is which Aretas is this? There are only two possibilities that fit any other historical facts to what Paul describes: Aretas the IV (ruler of Nabataea from 9 B.C. to 40 A.D.); or Aretas III (likewise, from 87 to 62 B.C.).
Aretas the IV (ruler of Nabataea from 9 B.C. to 40 A.D.); or Aretas III (likewise, from 87 to 62 B.C.).
If one goes with Aretas IV - then arguments are proposed for this Aretas IV to have some connection to Damascus in A.D. Arguments not supported by historical evidence.
Instead of arguments over Aretas IV being in control of Damascus during the NT time frame - Pilate - one could maintain the NT writers had their time frame wrong re Aretas and Damascus - i.e. they mixed up Aretas IV with Aretas III. That would allow a historicist view of the NT Paul. However, it seems the Paul historicists would rather make historical arguments devoid of historical evidence.
Historical evidence puts Aretas III in control of Damascus until about 63 b.c.
That is the only established date for an Aretas controlling Damascus.
Hence, if it's the historical Jewish roots to early christian origins that we seek - this date needs to be seriously considered. If it means that the NT Paul is not a historical figure then, like Brodie, I will consider that option as an approach to Paul and Damascus.
As it stands, the current arguments of Aretas IV are not conclusive.
Carrier: I don’t consider this matter as settled as mainstream scholars do...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.
Aretas III
Nabataean rule of Damascus was interrupted in 72 BCE by a successful siege led by the Armenian king Tigranes II. Armenian rule of the city ended in 69 BCE when Tigranes' forces were pulled out to deal with a Roman attack on the Armenian capital, allowing Aretas to re-take the city.
I don't think this says anything about why Aretas III would be wanting to hunt Paul. As Carrier said in his article :
It’s important to note that Paul never does tell us why Aretas or his ethnarch were hunting him. And whether Paul is writing in the 50s B.C. or A.D. we still can’t reconstruct why that would be.
So....the mystery remains...![]()
A BCE timeline for Paul would work well with an executed Antigonus II in 37 BCE as well imo.
Lane
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2949
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus
I don't know the ins and outs of your theory on Paul - just picked up a hint or two that you find a B.C. setting for Paul of interest. So, let me have your theory - in a nutshell perhaps. Baring in mind that I don't hold to a historical Paul - but maybe you don't either i.e. not the NT Paul that the scholarly consensus places a conversion scenario shortly after the crucifixion of the gospel JC (Tiberius and Pilate). So maybe you have Paul = such and such historical figure of the first century B.C. ?
I'm thinking, as I do with the literary JC figure, that Paul is more a composite literary figure than that any one figure equals Paul. Greg Doudna has identified the Josephan John the baptizer figure as Hyrancus II - I would go a step further and identify the Josephan John figure and the gospel JtB figure as representing Hasmonean history. The forerunners of what became Christianity.
Of course once we are in first century B.C. territory we are back to the Hasmonean civil war - and possibly that civil war alluded to in the DSS with it's Teacher of Righteousness and Wicked Priest scenario. These years, 63 b.c. and 37 b.c. are vital years - and so often overlooked in the rush to place Christian origins post 70 c.e. I think, however, it was necessary to, as it were, behead Hasmonean history in order to further the NT drive towards a spiritual or philosophical kingdom. (nicely done re the NT story about JtB...) Even if the Hasmoneans were full on supporters of a spiritual christ movement - their own history of Jewish nationalism would be, for the Gentile newcomers, a strike against their change of heart, a huge challenge for Gentile converts. So, best to put all that on the backburner of christian origins. And it worked for 2000 years. But now - the modern mind is not prepared to take the NT story as history, it wants answers. To get those answers Hasmonean history has to be put back on the table.
Perhaps - Paul represents that Hasmonean conversion from Jewish nationalism to a philosophical kingdom of neither Jew nor Greek.