2 Corinthians 11:32 —- Why Aretas?

[neilgodfrey]

Michelsen article available here:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... up&seq=435

Thank you, Stephen. Here is a pdf - ocr'd - of the article from that page:

michelsenpdf.pdf

(409.67 KiB) Downloaded 82 times

[maryhelena]

Aretas III --- Nah.

Based on the history of the city of Corinth, the timeline for an Aretas III is not a good fit for Paul’s letter to the Corinthians ---

146 BCE --- the ancient city of Corinth is destroyed by the Roman army and mostly lay in ruins until about 44 BCE

87-62 BCE --- reign of the Nabataean King Aretas III

44 BCE --- the Romans begin to rebuild the city of Corinth

9 BCE – 40 CE --- reign of the Nabataean King Aretas IV

From the very last year of the reign of Aretas III until the Romans begin to rebuild the ruins of Corinth is 18 years. For the city denizens to become well-established and prosperous, as characterized in the Corinthian correspondence, would take significantly longer. Sure, I suppose one can attempt to stretch-out the amount of time between the purported event in Damascus, and Paul’s telling of the story to the Corinthians, but Aretas III is not really a good fit for 2 Corinthians 11:32.

By all means reject a historical Paul in Damascus under Aretas III in the years 85 to 72 b.c. and 69 to 64/63 b.c.. (I do so myself as I view the NT Paul figure as a paper apostle.) But that rejection does not allow you to assume that Aretas IV had control of Damascus in the lst century c.e.. i.e. the standard NT timeline - there being no historical evidence to support Aretas IV controlling Damascus.

Consequently, you have no valid reason to support a theory regarding Paul in Corinth during the standard NT timeline. Have Paul in Corinth by all means but the timeline for that could be any dating up to most probably early 2nd century. 2 Cor.11.32 is the only historical time marker within 2 Cor.11. If your theory rests upon a historical Paul in Corinth within the standard NT timeframe - then I'm afraid your historical Paul has flown the nest ...welcome, of course, by some people.

[Giuseppe]

I read from here:
Reason to Doubt the Only Historical Date Marker in Paul’s Letters?

The interpolator is looking for what he thinks is missing here: an example of weakness in Paul; he goes through his history and finds that he once saved his life in Damascus by fleeing. Indeed, in the eyes of Christians of the second century, this was almost an unforgivable weakness, a crime. One only has to think of the well-known story of Peter’s escape from prison in Rome. Outside the city he meets the Lord. “Where to, Lord?” is his question, and the answer: “I am going to Rome to be crucified again.” And the apostle returns to his path ashamed, delivers himself once again into the hands of his persecutors and bravely undergoes martyrdom.

It gives us a good description of what moved the interpolator: a forma mentis very much similar to the author of Acts.


Someone has proposed that this escape from Aretas is a more faithful account than the escape from Jews in Damascus found in Acts 9:20-25:

At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21 All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 22 Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah.

23 After many days had gone by, there was a conspiracy among the Jews to kill him, 24 but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. 25 But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall

I don't think so. A "conspiracy among the Jews to kill him" had to use necessarily, according the best Gospel tradition, the not-Jew authorities, hence the interpolator found who was in Damascus who was both not Roman and not Jew and who could threat the Paul's life, hence the mention of Aretas.

Since the interpolator, in this scenario, was based on Acts 9:20-25, then accordingly the Aretas meant by him could only be an Aretas lived in the period according the Acts' chronology, i.e. the traditional chronology. Aretas IV, therefore.

[neilgodfrey]

For Giuseppe: Do you know the gematria for Aretas, in Greek and any possible Hebrew or Aramaic root? What does the name mean?

[Giuseppe]

For Giuseppe: Do you know the gematria for Aretas, in Greek and any possible Hebrew or Aramaic root? What does the name mean?

If you find all the occurrences of Aretas in Dubourg, you can find that he reports that, in Hebrew, "Aretas" is anagram of "Esther" and of "prison". I wonder what this may help in the context of the passage.

In whiletime, I am expecting this book where possibly I can find other gematries listed by a follower of Dubourg.

ADDENDA: Dubourg introduces these meanings for Aretas not commenting on 2 Corinthians, however.

[neilgodfrey]

For Giuseppe: Do you know the gematria for Aretas, in Greek and any possible Hebrew or Aramaic root? What does the name mean?

If you find all the occurrences of Aretas in Dubourg, you can find that he reports that, in Hebrew, "Aretas" is anagram of "Esther" and of "prison". I wonder what this may help in the context of the passage.

Unfortunately, it doesn't help, not as far as I can see anyway. I found it difficult to see much of a point to the Aretas anagram observation. Dubourg has lots of flecks of gold but one has to wash the pan to sift them out from the sand.

[Giuseppe]

For Giuseppe: Do you know the gematria for Aretas, in Greek and any possible Hebrew or Aramaic root? What does the name mean?

If you find all the occurrences of Aretas in Dubourg, you can find that he reports that, in Hebrew, "Aretas" is anagram of "Esther" and of "prison". I wonder what this may help in the context of the passage.

Unfortunately, it doesn't help, not as far as I can see anyway. I found it difficult to see much of a point to the Aretas anagram observation. Dubourg has lots of flecks of gold but one has to wash the pan to sift them out from the sand.

an example of bad exegesis is his implicit use of the anagram Aretas/Esther to justify the invention of Aretas punisher of Herod killer of John the Baptist (sic).

in whiletime, Carrier condemns the hypothesis of a proto-Gospel in Hebrew.

At the moment, I am interested to verify Dubourg especially on Paul, since Charbonnel thinks she can resolve the problem of Paul simply by making reference to Dubourg. I don't know if this negligence to deal directly with Paul is a weakness of the entire Charbonnel's view...

[neilgodfrey]

in whiletime, Carrier condemns the hypothesis of a proto-Gospel in Hebrew.

Unfortunately, Richard Carrier does tend to pre-judge certain questions in ignorance of key publications -- but don't we all.

[mlinssen]

in whiletime, Carrier condemns the hypothesis of a proto-Gospel in Hebrew.

Unfortunately, Richard Carrier does tend to pre-judge certain questions in ignorance of key publications -- but don't we all.

"key publications"

such as Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 2.9.45 and 5.14.96), Origen (in Joh. vol. II,12; in Jer. Vol. XV,4; in MT. vol. XV), Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica 3.25.5, 3.27.1-4, 3.39.17. 4.22.8 ?

I'll be happy with any other example supplied, besides Carmignac

[robert j]

Aretas III --- Nah.

Based on the history of the city of Corinth, the timeline for an Aretas III is not a good fit for Paul’s letter to the Corinthians ---

146 BCE --- the ancient city of Corinth is destroyed by the Roman army and mostly lay in ruins until about 44 BCE

87-62 BCE --- reign of the Nabataean King Aretas III

44 BCE --- the Romans begin to rebuild the city of Corinth

9 BCE – 40 CE --- reign of the Nabataean King Aretas IV

From the very last year of the reign of Aretas III until the Romans begin to rebuild the ruins of Corinth is 18 years. For the city denizens to become well-established and prosperous, as characterized in the Corinthian correspondence, would take significantly longer. Sure, I suppose one can attempt to stretch-out the amount of time between the purported event in Damascus, and Paul’s telling of the story to the Corinthians, but Aretas III is not really a good fit for 2 Corinthians 11:32.

By all means reject a historical Paul in Damascus under Aretas III ...

Yes, of course.

But that rejection does not allow you to assume that Aretas IV had control of Damascus in the lst century c.e..

I have not made that assumption. I think my relatively short OP in this thread was clear in that regard. I wrote ---

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.

In the other thread, you recently acknowledged the uncertainty also ---

As it stands, the current arguments of Aretas IV are not conclusive.

But then a few days later (addressing someone’s scenario) ---

Bottom line - Aretas IV did not control Damascus. All your scenario does is attempt to sidestep that historical fact.

A “historical fact”? For someone so vocal about putting an emphasis on documented history (not that there is anything wrong with that), you seem to be playing fast-and-loose with historical facts here.

You have an argument from silence (not that there is anything wrong with that). But how significant is that argument? If Aretas IV did at some point in time during the latter part of his reign, even perhaps for a relatively brief and transitory period of time, have enough control in Damascus to fit the event described by Paul, then what is the expectation that the appropriate records would have survived for that relatively short and tumultuous period in the region which included the fog of war? I think the expectation would not be particularly high, but certainly it’s a matter of opinion.

That we have no extant records that clearly demonstrate the case --- sure. Historical fact --- No.

The wording of verse 11:32 seems a bit sly to me. As pointed out by Paul the Uncertain on the other related thread, it is not clear if the ethnarch was working with legal authority from inside the city, or if he was watching from outside the city gates to capture Paul if he tried to leave. I think it’s a consideration that needs to be included in the investigation. Either inside or outside, the ethnarch would need some men to watch the multiple city gates.

Of course these discussions often assume the basket event had some historical reality. My implication in the OP, and pointed-out by GakuseiDon in his initial response, is that the event might have been contrived by Paul. I think it is a very distinct possibility that the event did not occur, or at best was very loosely based on Paul having to flee Damascus for some reason. It’s quite possible that Paul was just using a reasonably well-known royal name of a king that had died 10 or 15 years prior in order to demonstrate his own importance. As I pointed out in the OP, it seems very unlikely to expect that the far-away Corinthians would be knowledgeable about the arcane details for the far-distant Damascus from perhaps a decade or longer in the past

Just prior to Paul’s story of his daring escape in the basket, Paul makes all kinds of clams to bolster his importance in the eyes of the Corinthians. There are likely some kernels of truth in his brag-a-thon, but I certainly don’t buy it all. And directly following the story of the escape from Damascus is the very fantastical story of the man Paul knew that had made a journey into the 3rd heaven. Whether it was some guy Paul knew as he claimed, or Paul himself as many see it --- I don’t buy for a second that fantastical and desperate attempt to seem important.