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.