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

[gryan]

However, I'm sure there have been a lot of scholars who would also have liked it to be true. If no-one else has picked up on the idea of Paul referring to James when he used "didn't consult with flesh-and-blood", then I'd think it means the case for such a reading isn't too strong.

I've had that very thought, many times. But I have gradually come to a different point of view. As I see it now: The weight of tradition is very strongly biased against "seeing" (admitting the existence of) re-interpretations that are too different from the prevailing tradition--even re-interpretations that are, in terms exegetical evidence, quite "strong" (such as this one IMHO).

[gryan]

Re: “returned” to Damascus

Richard Carrier (in his JANUARY 7, 2022 blogpost) wrote: "...while Acts even says he [Paul] was from Tarsus in Asia Minor, he himself seems to imply he was from Damascus in Syria (in Galatians 1:17 he says he “returned” to Damascus without ever mentioning being there before, which implies it was then well known that’s where he resided; Paul never mentions being from anywhere else)..."
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/19314

I'm pondering this.

[gryan]

Re: "Damascus in Syria" (Carrier)

I find it interesting that Carrier refers not to Damascus in Arabia but to Damascus in Syria. Justin Martyr (followed by Turtillian) consider Damascus as having been in Arabia during the time of Jesus (and Paul), but consider the designation of Syria to be later--although Ben C. Smith found the mention of Syria to be a probable interpolation:
viewtopic.php?t=7323

[gryan]

Gal 1:13-14
[2 Cor 11:32-33]
Gal 1:15-16

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it (πορθέω).

And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.

[At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.] But when God, the One having selected me from my mother’s womb and having called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not consult with flesh and blood immediately, nor did I depart to Jerusalem to the apostles before me [immediately], but I departed to Arabia [immediately]; indeed, I returned back to Damascus [immediately].

I think my reconstruction (linking two stories of Paul vis-a-vis Arabia by inserting the one from 2 Cor into Gal) may have recreated a form of Paul's story that was known to the author of Acts:

Acts 9:21-25
21All who heard him were astounded and asked, “Isn’t this the man who wreaked havoc (πορθέω) in Jerusalem on those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?”

22But Saul was empowered all the more, and he confounded the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.

23After many days had passed, the Jews conspired to kill him, 24but Saul learned of their plot. Day and night they watched the city gates in order to kill him. 25One night, however, his disciples took him and lowered him in a basket through a window in the wall.

---------

The situation is different (pre vs. post conversion basket escape), but note this specific similarity: Recollections of Paul's pre-conversion destroying πορθέω activities and the basket escape story go together. In my reconstruction, the two motifs are connected integrally (destroying led to the need for escape); whereas in Acts, the two motifs are together accidentally (the destroying had happened a long time before the escape and with no meaningful connection).

My hypothesis is that the author of Acts took the basket escape motif from Paul's pre-conversion story from Damascus and used it to narrate Paul's post-conversion story of escape from Damascus.

[gryan]

Richard Carrier disagrees with my thesis that Damascus was in Arabia :

GRYAN JANUARY 10, 2022, 6:24 PM

[ON JANUARY 7, 2022] You [Richard Carrier] wrote: “while Acts even says Paul was from Tarsus in Asia Minor, he himself seems to imply he was from Damascus in Syria (in Galatians 1:17 he says he “returned” to Damascus without ever mentioning being there before, which implies it was then well known that’s where he resided; Paul never mentions being from anywhere else)…”
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/19314

I [gryan] would like to suggest another possibility and get your feedback on it. In my working translation of Galatians 1:15-17 Paul says: “But when God… was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not consult with flesh and blood immediately, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles before me [immediately], but I departed into Arabia [immediately]; indeed, I returned back to Damascus [immediately].” This translation assumes, with Justin Martyr that “none of you can deny that Damascus was [in the time of Jesus] , and is, in the region of Arabia…” (Dialogue 78.10: 10, Cf Tertullian, Against the Jews, 9.12: 12). Since Paul says he “returned back” to Damascus (a city in Arabia) without mention, in Galatians, of having been there and departing before, it implies that the Galatians had heard a very memorable story of Paul (the persecutor) being in and departing Damascus before his call. In 2 Cor Paul tells just such a story: “In Damascus, the governor under King Aretas secured the city of the Damascenes in order to arrest me. But I was lowered in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his grasp” (11:32-33). Notably, in this account, Damascus is under Arabian rule. Also, this flight from Damascus followed by a story that is arguably an expanded story of his initial call (12:1-10). The governor may have judged his attempt to destroy the church as a crime against orderly civil society.

As for echos in Acts, going “to Damascus immediately” after God’s son is revealed in him is has a clear parallel in 22:8-9.

‘Who are You, Lord?’ I asked.
‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ He replied…
Then I asked, ‘What should I do, Lord?’
‘Get up and go into Damascus’

I think the basket escape story from Paul’s pre-conversion is borrowed by the author of Acts and applied to a completely different post-conversion flight from Damascus.

I’m an amateur exegete and “patron” who happens to be a Christian (although not an apologist). I am asking your opinion as a professional historian (whose counter apologetic writings I happen to enjoy). What is the merit of this exegetical hypothesis?

REPLY

RICHARD CARRIER FEBRUARY 7, 2022, [a Monday] 4:27 PM

You are right about what Acts is doing. But the rest doesn’t hold up well.

The flight from Aretas was when he was a Christian (that’s the whole point of Paul’s story: he cites it as how he suffered for the Lord), so that can’t have occurred when Paul was a persecutor; it appears to be what occurred soon after he switched sides, so it sounds more like Aretas is angry that Paul turncoated, which implies Aretas was backing the persecution (there can be any number of reasons, including disinterested ones, e.g. wealthy and influential Jewish citizens importuning him to, a la Pilate). Paul actually doesn’t say, so it’s also possible it really had nothing to do with Christianity (Aretas may have been after Paul for any number of unstated reasons, and one could even imagine some of those reasons leading to Paul’s conversion as an escape tactic; we just don’t know, and we can’t speculate our way into knowing).

There are other problems with the thesis.

The Greek in Gal. 1 says “I went away to Arabia and returned again to Damascus,” literally, turned around and went back and again, meaning he went back to where he came from, which means Damascus was not in Arabia at that time, and that Damascus is where he left from when he went to Arabia—which comports with a 50s AD date, when it never was a part of Arabia, except possibly briefly and unofficially during a military campaign, which would not have been the year Paul converted, or through a district ethnarch outside Arabia (see How Do We Know the Apostle Paul Wrote His Epistles in the 50s A.D.?).

And he says he did all that after his conversion. Which means he was converted in Damascus (not on a road to or from it as Acts depicts).

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/19314

[StephenGoranson]

It may be that Arabia initially referred to the Arabian peninsula and then in later usage, by some, to a more expansive area.
If so, then a reference to Arabia may depend on the differing usage of differing authors, which may or may not map closely to politics.

[Secret Alias]

In the back of my mind there is something I recall about (a) Justin Martyr's Dialogue and (b) Tertullian where a prophesy regarding Herod was related to a geographical reference that was only true in 195 CE regarding Syria or Coele Syria and Arabia. I remember it was solid enough that conservative scholars accepted it showed Justin's work was interpolated. Maybe it has relevance here.

[Secret Alias]

Thus He says by Zechariah: "And Judah shall also fight at Jerusalem and shall gather together all the wealth of the nations round about, gold and silver." Moreover, respecting that gift of gold, David also says: "And there shall be given to Him of the gold of Arabia; " and again: "The kings of Arabia and Saba shall offer to Him gifts." For the East generally regarded the magi as kings; and Damascus was anciently deemed to belong to Arabia, before it was transferred to Syrophoenicia on the division of the Syrias (by Rome). Against Marcion

[Secret Alias]

I'm in a bit of a rush but here's one reference to the phenomena. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7328&p=117976&hilit ... us#p117976 As you know I repeat the same bit of information 100 times here at the forum.

[maryhelena]

Damascus and Aretas .....yep ..this forum has been around the houses with this problem. Perhaps, at the end of the day the question that needs to be asked is 'why'. Why was Damascus chosen by the NT Paul story as the place for a conversion experience, vision ? What was it about Damascus that was relevant for a Christian conversion ? Was it really just chance that Damascus was chosen ?

Aretas III was the only Aretas to control Damascus - losing control to the Romans around 63 b.c. What interest would a NT writer have with Aretas and Nabataean history around 63 b.c. ? Well, one interest could well be that prior to 63 b.c. Aretas III besieged Jerusalem with 50 thousand men. An attempt to unseat the Hasmonean King and High Priest, Aristobulus II. Aristobulus made a deal with a Roman and Aretas III took flight - experiencing heavy loses on the way back to Petra.

Thus the question - why was Hasmonean history of interest to the NT writers of the Paul story ? One reason would be that 63 b.c. was the start of the Roman occupation of Judea. Another reason would be that 63 b.c. was the end of the Hasmonean dynasty, the end of the Hasmonean era. In the context of this history the conversion of the NT Paul would relate to a new beginning, a road to the gentiles was open. History presented the opportunity for change. The Hasmonean dynasty ended, an era ended. A new kingdom, a kingdom without end, an intellectual and philosophical kingdom was deemed to be the way forward.

NT Paul in Damascus around the time Aretas III controlled Damascus ? That's the NT story not early christian history. A NT story able to place Paul, whether viewed as ahistorical or a historical figure, back to where the history of early Christianly had its origins: The fall of the Hasmonean era and Roman control of Judaea. NT Paul is viewed as the founder of what became christianity - backdating him to the time of Aretas III and Damascus - places him at the very beginning. It places him within a context of Hasmonean history. Hence aware of that history and aware of it's relevance to the NT story.

Aretas III

In 67 BCE, Hyrcanus II ascended to the throne of Judea. Scarcely three months later, his younger brother Aristobulus II incited a rebellion, successfully leading the uprising to overthrow Hyrcanus and take the offices of both King and High Priest. Hyrcanus was confined to Jerusalem, where he would continue to receive revenues of the latter office.[8] However, fearing for his life, he fled to Petra and allied himself with Aretas, who agreed to support Hyrcanus after receiving the promise of having the Arabian towns taken by the Hasmoneans returned to Nabataea by Hyrcanus' chief advisor, Antipater the Idumaean.

Aretas advanced towards Jerusalem at the head of 50,000 men, besieging the city for several months. Eventually, Aristobulus bribed Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, deputy of the Roman general Pompey. Scaurus ordered Aretas to withdraw his army, which then suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Aristobulus on the journey back to Nabatea.

Chronology, dating, within the NT story, is, I would suggest, of fundamental importance for researching early christian origins. Ignore the dating and one becomes blind to what is in front of ones face.....
============
added later

NT Paul's escape over the wall of Damascus is possibly modeled upon the escape of the spies sent by Joshua to Jericho - hence would indicate that Paul saw himself as following in the footsteps of Joshua - the leader to conquer the Promised Land: in other words, the NT Paul is the leader to clear the road ahead to that spiritual or philosophical kingdom. Damascus, like Jericho, a city of gentiles. The road ahead was opened in 63 b.c. but reaching or building that spiritual/philosophical kingdom without end would take time. A slow inauspicious start requiring many hands, many minds, many foot soldi soldiers along the way....63 b.c. to the end of Pilate in 37 c.e. = 100 years of development. No flash in the pan but a constant movement to develop ideas that would sustain that spiritual and philosophical kingdom without end.............

History, as always, is vital to understand where we have come from. However, ideas about that history, the why and the wherefor, the tragedy and the victories along the way, also plays its part to our self-understanding. In other words - history plus - gospel story and the Pauline interpretation of Hasmonean history; as a history leading to a 'salvation' story of an everlasting spiritual and philosophical kingdom.