Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 11:53 am

So - Aretas has an ethnarch guarding the city of Damascus. While the Roman's controlled Damascus.

Of course the Nabateans kept watch on Roman strongholds. Aretas IV wasn't a paranoid delusional: Roman troops marched on him, after he'd bloodied a Roman client princeling. Aretas dodged the bullet when Tiberias died, otherwise he might have been become yet another king the Romans stretched.

He wouldn't or shouldn't have thought to invest some assets to keep an eye on potential Roman staging points?

As hard a blower as he is, even Paul doesn't claim that the Nabateans were watching Damascus solely for the purpose of capturing him. Given that Nabatean intelligence operatives were watching Damascus, however, Paul felt the need to be discreet when leaving the city. The passage mentions no other time when Paul exerted himself to avoid Nabatean surveillance.

So - Aretas has an ethnarch to guard Damascus - but the ethnarch is nowhere near Damascus.....

The goalposts just moved. Your original claim was that the ethnarch was in Damascus. Apparently we've come to some tacit agreement that he might have been outside, for all Paul actually tells us.

Not at all - that's how I'm reading your position - that the ethnarch was somehow outside of Damascus. I don't hold that position.

Outside's not such a bad idea, either. Outside Damascus is a great place to catch up with Paul if Paul were recently seen leaving Damascus. But Paul hacked a way around that difficulty, which is what makes the story worth telling.

So - Aretas did not control Damascus and his ethnarch is not controlling Damascus.....

By Jove, you've got it! The rain is Spain falls mainly on the plain...

Again you are misreading me - I am referring to how I see your position..

Sorry, different show.

So - Paul is running from the ethnarch of Aretas - an ethnarch that has no control in Damascus...

Which might explain why Paul went to Damascus. Paul doesn't tell us why and it's a fair question.

seems to me we are in the realm of cloak and dagger stuff....

Both of our Aretases used military force. So, yes, it would be extraordinary if either one failed to engage in "cloak and dagger stuff" at some point in their respective careers.

the ethnarch is not an ethnarch but simply a plain old hit man.

Could be, both of our Aretases visited violence upon their foes, and either one may have promoted those who displayed some skill at it.

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

The only Aretas that controlled Damascus was Aretas III. 85 to 72 b.c. and 69 to 64/63 b.c.

This dating does not fit with the standard model of christian origins. Hence, many are the scenarios invented in order to get Aretas IV in control of Damascus. However, 2 Cor. 11.32 is not the only historical data that does not fit the standard model of chrisstian origins.


The ruler that is out of place in Luke 3.1 is Lysanias of Abilene.


So there we have it -

Aretas III controlled Damascus. Aretas IV did not control Damascus.
Lysanias of Abilene dating 40-36 BC. - a proposed second Lysanias dated to conform with the 15th year of Tiberius.

In both these case, Aretas III and Lysanias of Abilene, their dating goes beyond the standard model of Christian origins. In both these cases, reference is being made to the lst century b.c.

Consequently, arguments proposed for both Aretas IV and a second Lysanias serve only to support the standard model of christian origins. A one shinning moment in history when the son of god walked the sands of Palestine. That's the NT narrative - but it is not history. The NT narrative itself traces it's origins back to the lst century b.c.. It is the dates that the NT provides, through it's mention of historical figures, that push the Jewish roots of Christianity backwards to the lst century b.c. - back to Hasmonean history.

Aretas III will take one back to the time of Alexander Jannaeus and the Toledot Yeshu story. Aretas III dating takes one back to 63 b.c. and the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey with it's loss of Jewish sovereignty.

Lysanias of Abilene dating will take one back to 40 b.c. when the Hasmonean Antigonus was made King and High Priest. It will take one back to 37 b.c. when the Roman Marc Antony executed the Jewish King.

That is the Hasmonean history that both 2 Cor.11.32 and Luke 3.1. are referencing as being relevant to the NT narrative.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 1:08 pm

2 Corinthians 11:32 — New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (NASB95)

In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me,

The only Aretas that controlled Damascus was Aretas III. 85 to 72 b.c. and 69 to 64/63 b.c.

I've got to say that Paul the Uncertain has a point. According to YLT, the passage reads: "In Damascus the ethnarch of Aretas the king was watching the city of the Damascenes, wishing to seize me"

If Aretas (either III or IV) and his ethnarch were in charge of the city of Damascus, why make the point that his ethnarch had a watch on the city of Damascus? He was in charge! "In Damascus the ethnarch tried to seize me" would be enough, if the ethnarch was in charge of the city. It sounds like the ethnarch had a watch on the usual exits of the city. Paul was able to avoid the usual exits by going out the window and being let down in a basket. That didn't necessarily require an ethnarch who was in charge of the city itself.

I still think the natural implication of the passage is an ethnarch who was in charge of the city, so that's the one to go with. But I do see Paul the Uncertain's point here. The question is: does the passage still work if it is referring to an ethnarch of Aretas' from a neighbouring region who had the resources to mount a guard on the exits of Damascus? If it doesn't work, then: why not?

Hence, many are the scenarios invented in order to get Aretas IV in control of Damascus.

I haven't invented any such scenario. You'll have to take that up with someone who has.

Since we seem to have exhausted discussion of anything I've written about, here or on the blog, I'll just hop into my basket and slip away down the wall.

GDon wrote:

I still think the natural implication of the passage is an ethnarch who was in charge of the city, so that's the one to go with. But I do see Paul the Uncertain's point here. The question is: does the passage still work if it is referring to an ethnarch of Aretas' from a neighbouring region who had the resources to mount a guard on the exits of Damascus?

I've been following this discussion with interest since I hadn't looked into this issue very deeply before, and it looks to me like what Paul the Uncertain is saying could explain what's always seemed peculiar to me about the phrasing of 2 Cor. 11:32.

In Damascus the governor under the king Aretas was guarding the city of the Damascenes to seize me

Why does Paul say "in Damascus" and then "the city of the Damascenes" instead of just "In Damascus the governor under king Aretas was guarding the city to seize me"? Could the first "Damascus" refer to the region of Damascus (as per 1 Kings 19:15)) which was under the control of an Aretas (whichever one)? If that were so, then Paul the Uncertain's scenario would make sense. Aretas' ethnarch of the region of Damascus kept an eye on "the city of the Damascenes" to seize Paul when he came out but he thwarted him by going out a window.

I wouldn't say I'm sold on this, but perhaps it could explain these two (which is seemingly odd to me) references to "Damascus" here.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 2:58 pm

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 1:08 pm

2 Corinthians 11:32 — New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (NASB95)

In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me,

The only Aretas that controlled Damascus was Aretas III. 85 to 72 b.c. and 69 to 64/63 b.c.

I've got to say that Paul the Uncertain has a point. According to YLT, the passage reads: "In Damascus the ethnarch of Aretas the king was watching the city of the Damascenes, wishing to seize me"

If Aretas (either III or IV) and his ethnarch were in charge of the city of Damascus, why make the point that his ethnarch had a watch on the city of Damascus? He was in charge! "In Damascus the ethnarch tried to seize me" would be enough, if the ethnarch was in charge of the city. It sounds like the ethnarch had a watch on the usual exits of the city. Paul was able to avoid the usual exits by going out the window and being let down in a basket. That didn't necessarily require an ethnarch who was in charge of the city itself.

The ethnarch is not in charge of the city but is able to mount guards on the gates of the city ?. .......Strange - surely being in charge of the city involves keeping a watch on its gates - keeping the city secure.

I still think the natural implication of the passage is an ethnarch who was in charge of the city, so that's the one to go with. But I do see Paul the Uncertain's point here. The question is: does the passage still work if it is referring to an ethnarch of Aretas' from a neighbouring region who had the resources to mount a guard on the exits of Damascus? If it doesn't work, then: why not?

An ethnarch of Aretas from a neighbouring region - assumption.

The scenario that an ethnarch of Aretas was outside the city of Damascus watching the gates hence Paul had to go over the wall in a basket - makes no sense. . Why would Paul risk such a thing when he is safe inside the city? Paul needs to escape the city because an ethnarch of Aretas is inside the city guarding the city gates to prevent his escape. The danger for Paul is inside the city not outside of it.

And if there is an illusion in Paul's escape from Damascus to the spies in Jericho - - the spies escaped over the wall because the danger was inside the city. Joshua 2:1-24. Jericho became the first city to fall to Joshua as he led the way to the promised land. The Paul narrative in Damascus could simply be indicating that during the time of Aretas III and Damascus steps were taken, philosophical steps, to lead the way towards another promised land - a spiritual, philosophical, land of neither Jew nor Greek.

Damascus had seven gates - so we are not talking about one man any more - the ethnarch had deployed at least seven men - probably more - as one on one Paul could have fought his way past the guards of the ethnarch - and all this cloak and dagger stuff by a foreign power against a Roman controlled city...and the Romans maybe having their own guards on the gates anyway - a scenario here for more conflict than simply Aretas wanting to seize Paul....

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 3:19 pm

Hence, many are the scenarios invented in order to get Aretas IV in control of Damascus.

I haven't invented any such scenario. You'll have to take that up with someone who has.

Since we seem to have exhausted discussion of anything I've written about, here or on the blog, I'll just hop into my basket and slip away down the wall.

Enjoy the basket ride....

John2 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 4:21 pm GDon wrote:

I still think the natural implication of the passage is an ethnarch who was in charge of the city, so that's the one to go with. But I do see Paul the Uncertain's point here. The question is: does the passage still work if it is referring to an ethnarch of Aretas' from a neighbouring region who had the resources to mount a guard on the exits of Damascus?

I've been following this discussion with interest since I hadn't looked into this issue very deeply before, and it looks to me like what Paul the Uncertain is saying could explain what's always seemed peculiar to me about the phrasing of 2 Cor. 11:32.

In Damascus the governor under the king Aretas was guarding the city of the Damascenes to seize me

Why does Paul say "in Damascus" and then "the city of the Damascenes" instead of just "In Damascus the governor under king Aretas was guarding the city to seize me"? Could the first "Damascus" refer to the region of Damascus (as per 1 Kings 19:15)) which was under the control of an Aretas (whichever one)? If that were so, then Paul the Uncertain's scenario would make sense. Aretas' ethnarch of the region of Damascus kept an eye on "the city of the Damascenes" to seize Paul when he came out but he thwarted him by going out a window.

I wouldn't say I'm sold on this, but perhaps it could explain these two (which is seemingly odd to me) references to "Damascus" here.

Keep your cash in hand - this scenario about Aretas not controlling Damascus but keeping an eye on Damascus is not going anywhere anytime soon. Methinks the Romans would be keeping an eye on Aretas were they to hear any whisper that Aretas had his eye on their controlled city. Extra guards on the gates - troops at the ready to immediately squash any tomfoolery by Aretas IV.

It seems that Richard Carrier has removed this comment:


A comment in answer to this:

The above link still works - but the page won't refresh for the new long comment by our forum member, regarding Paul and Aretas III.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archive ... ment-32803

Carrier's reply: ''Alas, speculation is idle''.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 10:39 pm It seems that Richard Carrier has removed this comment:

RICHARD CARRIER AUGUST 12, 2021, 3:04 PM

Thank you. Alas, no further responses to that rambling crank are necessary.

here

A comment in answer to this:

GIUSEPPE AUGUST 12, 2021, 1:05 AM

If of interest, Doudna’s new reply to your objections may expect your reply.

The above link still works - but the page won't refresh for the new long comment by our forum member, regarding Paul and Aretas III.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archive ... ment-32803

Carrier's reply: ''Alas, speculation is idle''.

Alas, I could have hoped for more of a reply.