Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus
Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:17 am
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.