2 Corinthians 11:32 —- Why Aretas?

[maryhelena]

maryhelena, my apologies for making it personal. My frustration got the better of me, and my drama left questions about Arteas inadequately explored.

Thanks for that. No problem stuff happens.....

Evidently we agree that some speculation is necessary to develop solutions for the occurrence of the name Aretas in 2 Corinthians 11:32 --- the extant historical record is just not adequate. You pointed out that the 3 possible solutions I discussed for an Aretas IV involved some speculation. With the exception discussed below, I have always agreed with that and I think my wording of the possible solutions reflected that.

In addition, the arguments you have provided for an Aretas III as a solution also include a significant amount of speculation. Of course, we do have a big difference of opinion on just how likely it is that Aretas III might be the solution to the passage in question. Fine.

I also think much of this can be discussed without getting bogged down in our different opinions on whether Paul was real or a “paper apostle”.

On Aretas IV ---

Aretas IV

Possibility One

There are no extant records that demonstrate that Aretas IV was ever in control of Damascus. But that’s only part of the story ...

That is the story - - there being no historical evidence that Aretas IV ever controlled Damascus.

We agree on this, except I maintain that it is only part of the story.

in addition, there are no extant records that demonstrate that Aretas IV could not have had some measure of control in Damascus, even for a relatively short and transitory period of time. The last few years of the reign of Aretas IV included periods of regional turmoil and war.

Damascus has a relatively dry climate, but rain, snow, and the relative humidity are not anywhere close to being conducive to the preservation of documents in city dumps as are the sands of Egypt for example. And if Aretas IV had gained enough control in Damascus in the time of turmoil and war, even for just a few weeks ---- what is the likelihood of that being recorded by an outside observer, and what is the likelihood of those records surviving nearly 2000 years? Matter of opinion.

That's all a matter of speculation.

No. The very last portion beginning with "And if Aretas IV had ..." is where the speculation comes in. However, as far as I know, the first portion is an accurate statement about the historical record.

I am not aware of historical records that demonstrate that Damascus was under the continuous control of others for the entire reign of Aretas IV. I'm not aware of historical records that would clearly preclude Aretas IV from ever having assumed control of the city for even a short and transitory period of time, even for a period of time during last few years of his reign that included regional turmoil and war.

I offered my opinion that I thought Aretas IV having some period of control in Damascus is the least likely of the 3 possible solutions I discussed for Aretas IV. But the historical record does not preclude the possibility.

Relying on a possibility that Aretas IV might have had some control over Damascus within the NT standard timeline leaves one waiting, sort of, instead of finding a way forward.

Yes, I hold to a paper apostle Paul - but even with a historical Paul, as I posted earlier - his age is unknown and hence does not prevent him being active in the first century b.c. context of Aretas III.

Here is a possible way forward: Although Thomas Brodie holds to a paper apostle Paul, he nevertheless says this:

The idea that Paul was a literary figure did not remove the possibility that behind the epistles lay one outstanding historical figure who was central to the inspiring of the epistles, but that is not the figure whom the epistles portray. Under that person's inspiration - or the inspiration of that person plus co-workers - the epistles portray a single individual. Paul, who incorporates in himself and in his teaching a distillation of the age-long drama of God's work on earth.

Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus.

Somebody, or some people, wrote the material that is now in the Pauline epistles. Whether there was someone called 'Paul' involved in that writing is really neither here nor there. The story the NT relates about it's Paul figure, re Brodie, is a literary construct. So, we don't know who wrote the epistles, we don't know when they were written. What we do have are the words that were written. Words that relate ideas, that relate a philosophy. That philosophy relates to neither Jew nor Greek. (a philosophy, unfortunately, that has been taken by the Christian West as a model for a social political system - with all the negative consequences apparent today.)

What 2 Cor.11.32 is indicating with it's mention of Aretas - and only Aretas III controlled Damascus - is that the roots of that Pauline philosophy grew from the time Rome took control of Damascus - and Jerusalem - around the years 64/63 b.c. The neither Jew nor Greek philosophy stems from a historical context in which Jewish/Hasmonean sovereignty was lost. In other words; a physical, land based, kingdom was lost. Paul, in 2 Cor. 11.32 is contrasting the loss of the earthy kingdom to the birth of the spiritual kingdom - the new Pauline philosophy.

Consequently, from this perspective of tracing a philosophy back to it's roots, back to a time in history when loss of an earthly kingdom opened, as it were, the door to something different. A kingdom without end. Was this an immediate turn around - probably not as history relates the Hasmoneans kept trying to unseat Rome - having a partial success with Antigonus for a few short years. However, someone did grasp the significance and built a road to a spiritual, an intellectual or philosophical kingdom.

Aretas, Paul, over wall - Jericho, spies, over wall. The fall of Jericho and the road ahead to the Promised Land. That is the essence of 2 Cor. 11.32. The fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 63 b.c. led, in time, to ideas that developed into what we know today as Pauline philosophy.

Who were the historical figures involved with the ideas inherent in Pauline philosophy - well now - that is the question that raises its head when we put aside Aretas IV - and the unknown supposed Aretas V - and deal with the history as referenced in 2 Cor.11.32.

I posted in the other thread:

Yes, one can attempt to move the Paul, Aretas and Damascus story to 70 c.e. (with the speculation regarding an unknown Aretas V .) Moving the Paul, Aretas and Damascus story to the late 30 c.e. has no historical evidence re control of Damascus by Aretas IV. The only date that has a historical foundation is 63 b.c. and the fall of Jerusalem and Damascus to the Romans - as Jericho fell to Joshua. From that historical event - Pauline philosophy was born. Yep, Paul says he is as one born prematurely or untimely born - but the time would come when Pauline philosophy would leave the confines of it's links to the land and escape over the wall of Judaism. Whether that time came in 70 c.e. or 132 -136 c.e. - the foundation stone was laid in 63 b.c. A linkage to which 2 Cor.11.32 is demonstrating with it's allusion to Joshua and the fall of Jericho.

Bottom line - Whether or not the NT figure of Paul is a historical figure the NT story about this figure is a literary construct. i.e. the life of a flesh and blood Paul figure is not the story the NT relates. Thus, a flesh and blood Paul figure - or another Jewish philosopher by whatever name - did not need to have lived under any Aretas - whether III, IV or V. (that's the NT story) All Aretas in 2 Cor.11.32 is doing is providing a date - 64/63 bc. A date in which both Damascus and Jerusalem fell to the Romans. A date, a historical context to which a flesh and blood Paul or another Jewish philosopher - traced back the moment in time from which change became a necessity: The fall of Jerusalem to the Romans, the loss of sovereignty - opened the road forward towards the spiritual, the philosophical kingdom without end. The NT Paul the later day Joshua setting out to conquer the world - well at least the Western part of it...... but now of course it's hit a brick wall.....

[robert j]

Well, OK, that's a lot of words with barely a glancing response to the issue raised in my post.

Clearly it all boils down to our different opinions on who wrote Paul's letters, so I think we have hit a wall.

[neilgodfrey]

The point of the daring basket escape story was “I am important”. The short passage is contained in the much longer brag-fest in which Paul makes all kinds of claims in his own support --- claims to show how he is better than the Jewish missionaries that the Corinthians liked better than Paul. Paul was desperate.

But having been important enough to be singled out by the duly-appointed representative of a king. Yeah, that sounds good. An important king with an important name. Yeah, Aretas, the Corinthians would be impressed by that name.

Paul doesn’t specify the reason for being pursued, nor a time frame for the story beyond the name. The time frame of the reign of the Nabataean King Aretas IV (~ 9 BCE - 40 CE) can be seen as overlapping with a conventional dating for Paul.

Whether or not Aretas IV ever had enough authority over Damascus at some point during those occasionally tumultuous times to appoint an ethnarch is apparently too shrouded in uncertainty. But if not, would the far-away Corinthians even be knowledgeable about such an arcane fact?

I suspect Paul’s priority in writing the story was not on consistency with city records, but rather on the status conferred by an association with the widely known royal name, even as a fugitive. But apparently an important fugitive.

Paul was desperate. Whatever gossamer threads of authority he may have previously had with the Corinthians appear to have been broken at this juncture, or nearly broken.

robert j

Do you have any information on Aretas that would lead us to think that his name would indeed have been well-known enough to impress the "far-away Corinthians" even some 15 or years after the event?

[maryhelena]

Well, OK, that's a lot of words with barely a glancing response to the issue raised in my post.

Clearly it all boils down to our different opinions on who wrote Paul's letters, so I think we have hit a wall.

Not so, it boils down to which Aretas controlled Damascus.

I offered my opinion that I thought Aretas IV having some period of control in Damascus is the least likely of the 3 possible solutions I discussed for Aretas IV. But the historical record does not preclude the possibility.

Relying on a possibility that Aretas IV might have had some control over Damascus within the NT standard timeline leaves one waiting, sort of, instead of finding a way forward.

What else is there to say ? Possibility? I wouldn't be betting on it.

As it stands as of right now - the historical record is that Aretas III controlled Damascus. Yes, various attempts have been made to have Aretas IV have some control over Damascus - a control that fits with the NT standard time line. Possibility does not equate to probability. In the years of the standard NT time line - probability does not raise it's head.

Richard Carrier, although going with the arguments for Aretas IV says: ''I don’t consider this matter as settled as mainstream scholars do. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18613

(Interestingly, Carrier has come down on the idea of interpolation: Balance of probability strongly favors authenticity here.)

We are left with arguments over Aretas III and Aretas IV - and the dates history assigns to these Nabataean rulers. Aretas IV dating has no relevance for Jerusalem or Damascus. Dating for Aretas III does have relevance for Damascus and Jerusalem.

Was 70 CE a Watershed in
Jewish History?

On Jews and Judaism before and after the
Destruction of the Second Temple

Edited by
Daniel R. Schwartz and Zeev Weiss
in collaboration with Ruth A. Clements

SETTING THE STAGE: THE EFFECTS OF THE ROMAN
CONQUEST AND THE LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY

Nadav Sharon

Our Scholion group’s work has centered on the common scholarly
convention that ancient Judaism revolved around the Temple in Jerusalem until it
was destroyed in 70 ce, and thereafter became a religion with no geographical focus,
or, perhaps, with several. One way or
another, this thesis assumes that much of what we know about ancient
Judaism can meaningfully be organized around the destruction of the
Second Temple and understood as reflecting its existence or destruction.

2 A different scholarly view sees the evolution of rabbinic Judaism
not so much, or not only, as a result of the Temple’s destruction, but
rather as a response to the rise of Christianity.
One might ask, however, how it was that this religion and its people,
if in fact they were focused on the Temple to such an extent, were
able to overcome the incredible catastrophe of its destruction so as to
develop the concepts, attitudes, and institutions which enabled their
survival in the new and completely changed reality. It is my aim in
this paper not to argue with those views noted above, but rather to
draw scholarly attention to a somewhat neglected series of events that
I believe set the stage for that survival and for some of those post-70
developments. I am referring now to the events of 67–37 bce and their
aftermath.

A Neglected Era

Despite the enormous amount of scholarly work on the Second Temple
Period it seems to me that the period of 67–37 bce, and the dramatic
change it brought upon Judea, have been somewhat neglected in modern historical study.
The events of this period brought about the end
of the eighty-year-old independent and sovereign Judean state, established
by the Hasmoneans in the aftermath of Antiochus Epiphanes’
religious decrees and the ensuing revolt. In fact, these events resulted
in the almost complete annihilation of that prestigious priestly house.
In 63 bce the independent Hasmonean state, with its large territorial
gains, found itself suddenly under the domination of the expanding
world empire, Rome, and downgraded to a small semiautonomous
vassal state.

https://www.academia.edu/2501352/Settin ... overeignty

The watershed in Jewish history was the loss of sovereignty to Rome - an event of 63 b.c. The problem this history presents for 2 Cor. 11.32 is that this date does not fit the standard NT timeline. We can't change history - what is done is done. What we can do is let that history have a place in our approach to understanding the NT story about it's Paul figure. My suggestion is that we move from attempting to place a flesh and blood Paul figure in that historical, watershed, time frame - and work instead with Pauline philosophy. Attempting to trace the roots of that philosophy back to the historic event of 63 b.c.

Attempts to have Aretas IV having some control of Damascus within the NT timeline fail as history. Attempts to get a NT figure of a historical Paul to Damascus under Aretas IV - are an unnecessary waste of time - time that could more productively be spend on understanding Pauline philosophy in the light of the history of 63 b.c.

[robert j]

Do you have any information on Aretas that would lead us to think that his name would indeed have been well-known enough to impress the "far-away Corinthians" even some 15 or years after the event?

Even if the Corinthians did not know of the name Aretas IV, my suggestion of Paul writing the passage to seem important still works just fine. But I think knowledge of the name of Aretas IV among the group is a reasonable expectation.

I think it is reasonably clear in the Corinthian correspondence that at least some among Paul’s Corinthians were well-educated, sophisticated and prosperous. Paul would have been in a much better position to gauge the level of knowledge his congregation might have about such foreign matters than we will ever be. I think it is reasonable to expect that at least some in the congregation located in the important Mediterranean trading and port city would have heard the name of an Arteas IV that had ruled the important trading entity and kingdom of Nabataea for 49 years with at least the latter portion during their own lifetimes.

But if Paul’s Corinthians did not know the name of Aretas IV, his claim would still serve the purpose ---

In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king (Ἀρέτα τοῦ βασιλέως) was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me. (2 Corinthians 11:32)

To be the direct focus of a very important representative of a king can certainly be seen as making one seem important.