Was Damascus in Arabia? (Maybe Acts is more harmonious with Gal 1:15-19 than we thought)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Was Damascus in Arabia? (Maybe Acts is more harmonious with Gal 1:15-19 than we thought)

Post by gryan »

2 Cor 11:32
In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me, and I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and so escaped his hands.

Gal 1:15-17
"...when God... decided to reveal his son in me... I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I [immediately] go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I [immediately] departed to Arabia; indeed, I returned again to Damascus."

According this reading of Gal, to depart or return [ἀπέρχομαι] "to Arabia" and to return back again [ὑποστρέφω] "to Damascus" are two ways of describing one and the same return (from where, he does not say) to one and the same place, i.e. Damascus, Arabia [where "the ethnarch under Aretas" would later, or had already tried to "seize" him].

Plausible?
Last edited by gryan on Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:33 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia?

Post by spin »

Damascus was on the edge of Arabia! The Roman province of Arabia Petraea was centered on the town of Bosra. Around 20 BCE Zenodorus sold a parcel of his land (Auranitis) to the Arabs despite Rome having confiscated it. This Hauran was the birthplace of the Roman emperor Philip the Arab. An earlier Aretas had seized Damascus only to have to cede it when Pompey came east, so the city was briefly in Arab hands. Arabia stretched from east of all Herod the Great's possessions down into the peninsula.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Was spin Kidnapped by Aliens?

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Who gives a fatwa if Damascus was in Arabia or Denarius was in first century Israel. What I want to know is was spin just in BCH?


Joseph

HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.

http://thenewporphyry.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Was spin Kidnapped by Aliens?

Post by Jax »

JoeWallack wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:12 am JW:
Who gives a fatwa if Damascus was in Arabia or Denarius was in first century Israel. What I want to know is was spin just in BCH?


Joseph

HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.

http://thenewporphyry.blogspot.com/
Who cares? I just hope he hangs around! :popcorn:
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia?

Post by perseusomega9 »

Spin is back!
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia?

Post by gryan »

Re: Damascus was a city on the edge of Arabia (Thanks spin!)

The words, “for Sinai is a mountain in Arabia” (Gal 4:25), were a non-Pauline interpolation (Discovered by Schott cj ex Bentley, and determined on text critical grounds by Carlson).

The interpolation in 4:15 ought not distract from the argument that Damascus specifies the place in Arabia Paul returned to "immediately" after his revelation experience.
Last edited by gryan on Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia?

Post by gryan »

Re: My "[immediately] ...into Damascus (εἰς Δαμασκόν)" interpretation of Gal is in remarkable harmony with Acts

Acts 9


5“Who are You, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” He replied. 6“Now get up and go into the city (εἰς τὴν πόλιν), and you will be told what you must do.”

7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless. They heard the voice but did not see anyone. 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could not see a thing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus (εἰς Δαμασκόν).

Acts 22

7I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?’

8‘Who are You, Lord?’ I asked.

‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ He replied. 9My companions saw the light, but they could not understand the voice of the One speaking to me.

10Then I asked, ‘What should I do, Lord?’

‘Get up and go into Damascus (εἰς Δαμασκόν),’ He told me. ‘There you will be told all that you have been appointed to do.’

11Because the brilliance of the light had blinded me, my companions led me by the hand into Damascus (εἰς Δαμασκόν).

----------------

I am arguing that in Gal, as in Acts, it was immediately after his initial revelation, Paul went into Damascus. In obvious support of my view, some of the very same wording appears in both Acts and Gal: εἰς Δαμασκόν.

How very odd it would be if published interpretations from the days of Victorinus and Jerome to today had not even considered this obvious interpretive option for reading Gal in harmony with Acts!

Does anyone know of anyone, past or present (other than me, this week), who has even mentioned this interpretation of Gal vis-a-vis Acts in print? (I don't)
Last edited by gryan on Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia?

Post by gryan »

gryan wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:24 am Re: My "[immediately] ...to Damascus" interpretation of Gal and remarkable harmony with Acts

Acts 9


5“Who are You, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” He replied. 6“Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless. They heard the voice but did not see anyone. 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could not see a thing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus.

Acts 22

7I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?’

8‘Who are You, Lord?’ I asked.

‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ He replied. 9My companions saw the light, but they could not understand the voice of the One speaking to me.

10Then I asked, ‘What should I do, Lord?’

‘Get up and go into Damascus,’ He told me. ‘There you will be told all that you have been appointed to do.’

11Because the brilliance of the light had blinded me, my companions led me by the hand into Damascus.

----------------

Both in Gal (according to my interpretation of the Greek), and in Acts, immediately after his initial revelation, Paul goes to Damascus.

How very odd it would be if published interpretations from the days of Victorinus and Jerome to today had not even considered this obvious interpretive option for reading Gal in harmony with Acts!

Does anyone know of anyone, past or present (other than me, this week), who has even mentioned this interpretation of Gal vis-a-vis Acts in print? (I don't)
Today I checked commentaries, ancient and modern, and so far, none consider that Paul may have been saying in Gal that he went immediately to Damascus in Arabia.

Here is how Bart Ehrman interprets Galatians 1:15-17 according to a standard translation:

Galatians 1:15-17 (in a standard mis?translation)
"But when God, who had set me apart from the womb of my mother and had called by through his grace was pleased to reveal his son to me, so that I might preach him among the gentiles, immediately I did not consult with flesh and blood. Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me. But I went off to Arabia and again, then, returned to Damascus."

Ehrman's interpetation:

"This description seems to suggest that the “revelation” Paul received occurred in Damascus itself (not on the road there), since he indicates at the end that after his sojourn to Arabia – by which he does not mean the desserts of Saudi Arabia, but the kingdom of the Nabataeans – he “returned” to Damascus. Despite its maddening brevity, the description does contradict at least one detail in the narrative of Acts 9: here Paul explicit states that he did not consult with anyone about his experience right away. In Acts that’s the first thing that he does, as he goes on Jesus’ instruction to speak with a disciple named Ananias."

--The Conversion of Paul, June 16, 2016, https://ehrmanblog.org/the-conversion-of-paul/

I think Ehrman represents the modern scholarly consensus here.

On a related note: About a year ago, I asked Ehrman on his blog if he agrees with me that it is exegetically possible that Paul DID consult with "flesh and blood" when he visited James in his status as the Lord's "flesh-and-blood" brother. He agreed that this is possibly what Paul meant.

If my thesis is correct that the Lord's flesh-and-blood brother is the person who Paul was specifically referring to when he said, "I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood", then it would not be a "contradiction" for Paul to go immediately to Damascus to speak with a disciple named Ananias.
Last edited by gryan on Tue Nov 23, 2021 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia?

Post by GakuseiDon »

gryan wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:45 amOn a related note: About a year ago, I asked Ehrman on his blog if he agrees with me that it is exegetically possible that Paul DID consult with "flesh and blood" when he visited James in his status as the Lord's "flesh-and-blood" brother. He agreed that this is possibly what Paul meant.

If my thesis is correct that the Lord's flesh-and-blood brother is the person who Paul was specifically referring to when he said, "I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood", then it would not be a "contradiction" for Paul to go immediately to Damascus to speak with a disciple named Ananias.
That's a fascinating insight, gryan! But did they use "flesh and blood" in that way back then to indicate a blood relation? It does seem like applying a modern English reading to a translation of an ancient phrase.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia?

Post by gryan »

GakuseiDon wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:44 pm
gryan wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:45 amOn a related note: About a year ago, I asked Ehrman on his blog if he agrees with me that it is exegetically possible that Paul DID consult with "flesh and blood" when he visited James in his status as the Lord's "flesh-and-blood" brother. He agreed that this is possibly what Paul meant.

If my thesis is correct that the Lord's flesh-and-blood brother is the person who Paul was specifically referring to when he said, "I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood", then it would not be a "contradiction" for Paul to go immediately to Damascus to speak with a disciple named Ananias.
That's a fascinating insight, gryan! But did they use "flesh and blood" in that way back then to indicate a blood relation? It does seem like applying a modern English reading to a translation of an ancient phrase.
To apply modern English to an ancient phrase would be anachronistic, of course. That would be little like interpreting Galatians by the words of Origen who said this:

From Origen, Against Celsus 1.47b-d
Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood (δια το προς αιματος συγγενες), or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.

----------------
Here Origen is explicitly describing James's "brother" relationship as a "blood relationship." His language seems to be informed by making a connection between "James the Lord's brother" and "consult with flesh and blood". It is to be noted also that "consult" implies an attitude of deference for someone worthy of respect. But I don't relay on that for my interpretation.

It would also be anachronistic to rely on a parallel usage of the phrase "flesh and blood" in GMatt:

Matt 16
15“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church...

---------------------------

Note that this saying contrasts two possible sources of "revelation": "flesh and blood" vs "My father in heaven." The contrast is between natural family linage and divine linage. In a natural family view, "James the Lord's brother" (perhaps eldest brother, since he is listed first in gMark) would be next in the royal line after the death of Jesus. But in the Kingdom of God, the paternal line is reckoned in heavenly terms. This gets closer to Paul's meaning, IMHO.

There is also the literary echo of "flesh and blood"/"brother" in Hebrews to be considered:

Hebrews 2
11For both the One who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. 12He says:

“I will proclaim Your name to My brothers;

I will sing Your praises in the assembly.”

13And again:

“I will put My trust in Him.”

And once again:

“Here am I, and the children God has given Me.”

14Now since the children have blood and flesh, He too shared in their humanity, so that by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is, the devil, 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

16For surely it is not the angels He helps, but the descendants of Abraham. 17For this reason He had to be made like His brothers in every...

---------------

This is IMHO a literary echo the specific "flesh and blood"="brother relationship" used by Paul to describe the relationship between of Jesus and James (according to my reading of Gal). Hebrews generalizes this "blood and flesh"=brother idea to describe Jesus becoming like flesh and blood children of Abraham in every way as a brother. This is a complicated metaphor, but I think the language comes from the author of Hebrews having read Gal as I do, i.e. "flesh and blood"="brother relationship".

That said, it seems to me that the best place to get a sense of what Paul himself meant by "flesh and blood" is his own usage:

1 Cor 15:50
Now I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

-------------------

If Paul was referring to James the Lord's brother as "flesh and blood" in the 1 Cor sense, as I think he was, he was implying a contrast between the perishable bond of blood brother relations and the imperishable bond of "brother" relations in the kingdom of God. And it is based on the literary context in Galatians read as a literary unity (chiastic structure, grammar and sense etc) that this is what I think Paul was doing. Paul is saying that James the Lord's brother is a brother in the perishable sense (i.e. "according to the flesh"), in contrast to the those in the audience who are brothers of Jesus in the imperishable sense (i.e. "brothers in the pattern of Isaac, children of promise", Gal 4:21-31).

Initially, Paul "consulted" with James in that he showed respect for his wisdom and presented himself as subordinate member in a consultation; however, in retrospect, he had come to view James's blood relationship with Jesus as perishable one rather than an eternal one.

As I read Galatians, Paul was setting up a contrast of two models: The place to look for the ongoing model of "the life of Jesus" worthy of imitation was not in his "flesh and blood" brother of Jesus but, "in the flesh" of the co-crucified apostle who had, after his third heaven ascent experienced a "thorn in the flesh". Metaphorically, I interpret the blindness of Saul in Acts as Paul's "thorn in the flesh/eyes." The Paul of Galatians/Corinthians claimed to enflesh the meaning of the revealed teaching of the Lord which was given to him in direct, healing response to his prayer for deliverance from the "thorn": "My grace suffices you, for the power is perfected in weakness."

Thoughts?
Last edited by gryan on Sun Nov 28, 2021 5:00 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Post Reply