Speculate about Aretas IV all you like. What you can't do is provide historical evidence that he had any control of Damascus during the standard model NT timeline.
Nor have I tried to. You keep posting this mantra as if I have claimed that Aretas IV ever controlled Damascus. I haven't, and I strongly doubt that he ever did.
Nevertheless, for the reasons stated here and in the blog, and even apart from any reliance on the standard model, I find it more likely that Paul's Aretas is IV than III, although not by so much as to eliminate III as a serious possibility.
It is not my problem that for your favorite hypothesis to overturn the standard model of Christian origins, you need a win on this point, not merely going the distance.
''...need a win, not merely going the distance''.
I'm not trying to 'win' anything. If, at the end of the day, the standard model on Aretas, Paul and Damascus, is overturned in favour of Aretas III, that is not a win. That would be allowing history to have the final say not speculation. As for the standard model loosing - that would be collateral damage not the driving force, the focus, in any search for 'truth', for knowledge or insight. One searches for knowledge or understanding for it's own sake not for knocking down any standard model of 'truth'.
And if someday you succeed in your quest, then that will be fine with me. Godspeed.
Surely some speculation is more plausible--and more amenable to Occam’s razor--than others. If mh, author of the OP, imagines she does not speculate, so be it. If mh separates herself and her English-only story analyses from views of writers on Bible (this is, um, BC&HF) and amateur historians, so be it. And ignores the Gallio inscription, found somewhat over a century ago, etc.
Back to the OP, which includes “Why was Aretas hunting Paul?”
Paul travelled widely. He sometimes made enemies; he apparently was not the most likable person. Gerd Luedemann wrote a whole book on one set of his opponents, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989).
In the case of Nabataea—correct me if I am misinformed—there are no known Christian churches there before the time of Constantine. Christianity there, compared to some other areas, apparently was unwelcome.
(Definitions of the Decapolis, i.e., whether it included Damascus or not, vary. That matters in some proposed reconstructions.)
The Nabataeans had their own gods, rituals, and practices. A strong king, such as Aretas IV, might quite plausibly not appreciate having an outsider potentially making trouble, seeking to overturn traditional ways.
The Roman Armies, as was explained in the Campbell article, were temporarily focused elsewhere.
That Aretas could have an ethnarch try to catch Paul is not far to seek. Whether it happened is a fair question. But it is by no means out of the question, a some dogmatic individuals assert.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:45 am
Surely some speculation is more plausible--and more amenable to Occam’s razor--than others. If mh, author of the OP, imagines she does not speculate, so be it. If mh separates herself and her English-only story analyses from views of writers on Bible (this is, um, BC&HF) and amateur historians, so be it. And ignores the Gallio inscription, found somewhat over a century ago, etc.
Back to the OP, which includes “Why was Aretas hunting Paul?”
Paul travelled widely. He sometimes made enemies; he apparently was not the most likable person. Gerd Luedemann wrote a whole book on one set of his opponents, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989).
In the case of Nabataea—correct me if I am misinformed—there are no known Christian churches there before the time of Constantine. Christianity there, compared to some other areas, apparently was unwelcome.
(Definitions of the Decapolis, i.e., whether it included Damascus or not, vary. That matters in some proposed reconstructions.)
The Nabataeans had their own gods, rituals, and practices. A strong king, such as Aretas IV, might quite plausibly not appreciate having an outsider potentially making trouble, seeking to overturn traditional ways.
The Roman Armies, as was explained in the Campbell article, were temporarily focused elsewhere.
That Aretas could have an ethnarch try to catch Paul is not far to seek. Whether it happened is a fair question. But it is by no means out of the question, a some dogmatic individuals assert.
It is speculated that control of Damascus was gained by Aretas IV Philopatris of Nabatea between the death of Herod Philip in 33/34 AD and the death of Aretas in 40 AD but there is substantial evidence against Aretas controlling the city before 37 AD and many reasons why it could not have been a gift from Caligula between 37 and 40 AD.[52][53] In fact, all these theories stem not from any actual evidence outside the New Testament but rather "a certain understanding of 2 Corinthians 11:32" and in reality "neither from archaeological evidence, secular-historical sources, nor New Testament texts can Nabatean sovereignty over Damascus in the first century AD be proven."
Aretas III (/ˈærɪtəs/;[1] Arabic: حارثة الثالث Ḥārthah; Greek: Αρέτας Arétās) was king of the Nabataean kingdom from 87 to 62 BCE.
Conquest of Damascus
Damascus straddled the primary commercial route from the Mediterranean Sea to India and the Middle East. The city was taken from the loosening grip of the Seleucid Empire in 85 BCE by Aretas, who styled himself as Aretas Philhellen (Philhellen, "friend of the Greeks").[4] He ordered the mints of Damascus to produce the first silver Nabataean coins, in a Hellenic style and lettering his name in the Greek language instead of Nabatean Aramaic.[5] To further reinforce the new culture of the Nabataeans, Aretas endeavoured to bring architecture of Greek and Roman fashion to the Nabataean capital, Petra,[6] and to new settlements such as Humayma, including a 26.8 km aqueduct.[7] Nabataean rule of Damascus was interrupted in 72 BCE by a successful siege led by the Armenian king Tigranes II. Armenian rule of the city ended in 69 BCE when Tigranes' forces were pulled out to deal with a Roman attack on the Armenian capital, allowing Aretas to re-take the city.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 3:36 am
Again, dogmatic repetition, rather than engaging in known archaeology and available literature.
Unfortunately, repetition is necessary when you continue to post unevidenced arguments over Aretas IV having any control over Damascus during the standard gospel timeframe.
As explained above, and as also explained by R. Reisner, Campbell, and others, Aretas IV sending a tribal leader to Damascus to try to capture Paul was entirely possible--even if somewhat risky--at the time.
I agree that "once a fundamentalist always a fundamentalist" does not apply in all cases. But....
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:13 am
As explained above, and as also explained by R. Reisner, Campbell, and others, Aretas IV sending a tribal leader to Damascus to try to capture Paul was entirely possible--even if somewhat risky--at the time.
I agree that "once a fundamentalist always a fundamentalist" does not apply in all cases. But....
R. Reisner, Campbell has no historical evidence that Aretas IV ever had any control over Damascus......He can stand on his head or try caterwallimg from the rooftops... and all he will get is dismissal from ancient historians.
Reisner and Campbell and Bowersock and others are ancient historians.
For example on Glen Bowersock, excerpted from current Wikipedia:
Bowersock has served as lecturer in ancient history at Balliol, Magdalen, and New College, Oxford (1960–62), Professor of Classics and History, Harvard University (1962–80) (full Professor from 1969). Bowersock was Professor of Ancient History at the Institute for Advanced Study from 1980 until his retirement in 2006. He is the author of over a dozen books and has published over 400 articles on Greek, Roman, and Near Eastern history and culture as well as the classical tradition.
Bowersock formerly served as Professor of Classics and History at Harvard University. During his career at Harvard (1962 to 1980), he served as Professor of Classics and History; Chairman of the Classics Department; and Associate Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 1989, he was elected to membership in the American Philosophical Society, the oldest learned society in the United States, dating to 1743.[1]
Bowersock has received numerous honorary degrees, including: University of Strasbourg (Sciences Humaines), Docteur honoris causa (1990), Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Paris), Docteur honoris causa (1999), University of Athens, Doctor honoris causa (2005). He is also an Honorary Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford (2004) at which he was once a Rhodes Scholar.
Bowersock was awarded the James Henry Breasted Prize of the American Historical Association for his book Hellenism in Late Antiquity. A symposium in his honor was held at Princeton University on April 7, 2006, under the title East and West: A Conference in Honor of Glen W. Bowersock, the proceedings of which were published by the Harvard University Press in 2008.
He is a Foreign Member of the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei in Italy, Associé étranger de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and Foreign Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:29 am
Reisner and Campbell and Bowersock and others are ancient historians.
For example on Glen Bowersock, excerpted from current Wikipedia:
Bowersock has served as lecturer in ancient history at Balliol, Magdalen, and New College, Oxford (1960–62), Professor of Classics and History, Harvard University (1962–80) (full Professor from 1969). Bowersock was Professor of Ancient History at the Institute for Advanced Study from 1980 until his retirement in 2006. He is the author of over a dozen books and has published over 400 articles on Greek, Roman, and Near Eastern history and culture as well as the classical tradition.
Bowersock formerly served as Professor of Classics and History at Harvard University. During his career at Harvard (1962 to 1980), he served as Professor of Classics and History; Chairman of the Classics Department; and Associate Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 1989, he was elected to membership in the American Philosophical Society, the oldest learned society in the United States, dating to 1743.[1]
Bowersock has received numerous honorary degrees, including: University of Strasbourg (Sciences Humaines), Docteur honoris causa (1990), Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Paris), Docteur honoris causa (1999), University of Athens, Doctor honoris causa (2005). He is also an Honorary Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford (2004) at which he was once a Rhodes Scholar.
Bowersock was awarded the James Henry Breasted Prize of the American Historical Association for his book Hellenism in Late Antiquity. A symposium in his honor was held at Princeton University on April 7, 2006, under the title East and West: A Conference in Honor of Glen W. Bowersock, the proceedings of which were published by the Harvard University Press in 2008.
He is a Foreign Member of the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei in Italy, Associé étranger de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and Foreign Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
One can display similar bios of Lambdin, Layton and Gawd knows who, but that doesn't make their Thomas translation less awfully corrupted, biased and dead wrong
Once you're on the pedestal you get offered similar pedestals and even better ones, and the higher you get the less criticism your receive. I am not saying that this list is without merit, I'm just saying that it doesn't equate to merit
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:29 am
Reisner and Campbell and Bowersock and others are ancient historians.
For example on Glen Bowersock, excerpted from current Wikipedia:
Bowersock has served as lecturer in ancient history at Balliol, Magdalen, and New College, Oxford (1960–62), Professor of Classics and History, Harvard University (1962–80) (full Professor from 1969). Bowersock was Professor of Ancient History at the Institute for Advanced Study from 1980 until his retirement in 2006. He is the author of over a dozen books and has published over 400 articles on Greek, Roman, and Near Eastern history and culture as well as the classical tradition.
Bowersock formerly served as Professor of Classics and History at Harvard University. During his career at Harvard (1962 to 1980), he served as Professor of Classics and History; Chairman of the Classics Department; and Associate Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 1989, he was elected to membership in the American Philosophical Society, the oldest learned society in the United States, dating to 1743.[1]
Bowersock has received numerous honorary degrees, including: University of Strasbourg (Sciences Humaines), Docteur honoris causa (1990), Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Paris), Docteur honoris causa (1999), University of Athens, Doctor honoris causa (2005). He is also an Honorary Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford (2004) at which he was once a Rhodes Scholar.
Bowersock was awarded the James Henry Breasted Prize of the American Historical Association for his book Hellenism in Late Antiquity. A symposium in his honor was held at Princeton University on April 7, 2006, under the title East and West: A Conference in Honor of Glen W. Bowersock, the proceedings of which were published by the Harvard University Press in 2008.
He is a Foreign Member of the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei in Italy, Associé étranger de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and Foreign Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
So.... the question to ask is are those proposing that Aretas IV had control over Damascus upholding the standard NT Pauline timeline. .If so, then impartiality regarding 2.Cor.II.32 is questioned. Letting go of assumptions regarding Aretas IV brings into play the standard model NT timeline......perhaps something Christian historians might struggle with. Faith is a very strong inhibitor.....
