I've just noticed that Greg Doudna has had another attempt to get Richard Carrier to consider his position on Paul. No reply, as yet, from Carrier.
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/comment ... mment-1092
Gregory Doudna on Fri, 07/30/2021 - 11:13
The problem is, nothing in Paul's letters with the exception of the claim of an Aretas IV allusion at 2 Cor 11 establishes a pre-70 date directly at any point in those letters, nor have you cited any. You cite an indirect argument from silence, a lack of unambiguous backward allusion to events of 70 in Paul's letters. On Aretas IV, I have submitted an article to a peer-reviewed journal removing the Aretas IV argument for date of Paul's letters by establishing (per argument of my journal submission) from Nabataean evidence that there was another Nabataean king between Malichus II and Rabbel II, ca. 69-70 CE, who may have been named Aretas, the leading candidate for the name, thereby raising another first-century CE possibility for the Aretas referent at 2 Cor 11. All of the argument for the existence of the additional Nabataean king at ca. 69-70 CE whose most plausible name candidate was Aretas, is established independently of 2 Cor 11. There is no reason anyone, whether yourself or any other, should accept that until and if it is vetted through peer review and published (and even then only if the argument holds up to further critical reading and review), but for purposes of this discussion I ask you to assess (if responding to me) how secure you believe the argument for the 50s dating of Paul's letters stands minus the 2 Cor 11 Aretas argument. Does your 50s dating of Paul's letters stand without need of 2 Cor 11, in other words--given that that is the only hard-date argument internal to the letters for a pre-70 date of letter-writing activity of Paul. (Thomas Thompson at Copenhagen has stated for the record that he finds my submitted article proposing a 69-70 CE Aretas V "an entirely convincing hypothesis that should be published".) Again, no reason for you to accept that at this point, not asking you to, but am asking, as a thought experiment, for you to segregate out 2 Cor 11 from your argument-structure for the 50s CE date and assess whether your conclusion on that stands unaffected if 2 Cor 11 were to be removed.
Interesting in that Greg has suggested that Carrier put aside Greg's own argument over Aretas V and as a 'thought experiment' consider the dating of Paul's epistles without 2 Cor. 11.32 i.e. the Aretas and Damascus problem. Indeed without the Aretas and Damascus problem the Pauline epistles could be placed just about anywhere - and post 70 c.e. would be a suitable time frame. Problem is of course that 2 Cor.11.32 is in a Pauline epistle. If one wants to move the Pauline epistles then one has to take the Paul and Damascus problem along with them - or choose to ignore it as an interpolation. Greg has chosen to not only argue for an Aretas V but that this unknown Aretas V had some control over Damascus around 69/70 c.e. And that is Greg's big problem - an Aretas V having control of Damascus in 69/70 c.e.
The fundamental issue with 2 Cor. 11.32.33. is that it can not be solved from a historical Paul position.
1) The Pauline writer made a mistake in mentioning an Aretas.
2) Creating scenarios for an Aretas IV controlling Damascus are without historical evidence.
3) Creating scenarios for an unknown Aretas V controlling Damascus are without historical evidence.
4) Going the interpolation route is simply an attempt to avoid the Aretas and Paul problem.
So, back to history: Aretas III controlling Damascus in the years 85 to 72 b.c. and 69 to 64/63 b.c, Not welcome news for the Paul historicists.
Paul and Jesus go together like a horse and carriage - either have both as historical figures or both as literary, ahistorical figures. The Jesus mythicists are attempting to have their cake and eat it - ie. an ahistorical Jesus and a historical Paul - a scenario not producing any forward movement - a historical Paul is to cripple the whole ahistoricists case. (ideas about a historical Jesus and a historical Paul have got nowhere these last 2000 years...stagnated)
A human figure, either flesh and blood or a literary creation is a dualistic entity. Body and spirit, mind and matter, heart and soul. In a sense, the Jesus figure is the body and the Paul figure is the spirit. The gospels focus on the body, on physical reality and history. The Paul figure is focused on spirituality, on intellectual or philosophical worlds. Gospels and Epistles. Which story came first ? They both go together. Paul is in the Jesus figure as the Jesus figure is in Paul. Christianity, in spite of it's Christmas story, moves with Paul. It's Pauline philosophy, whether understood or misunderstood, that has propelled the Christian agenda.
The boat of NT research needs to be rocked hard. The mythicist's ahistorical Jesus has failed to do that. Time, methinks to get hold of an ahistorical Paul.....yep, methinks cold feet all-around - Paul is by far the bigger fish to catch....
