gstafleu

Many people would agree that Acts is (mostly) fictional. Most people hold that the Paul from the Epistles is real, in a "Well, somebody must have written Paul's letters" kind of way. But some think even that Paul is fictional, see for example The Falsified Paul by Hermann Detering. Plus, as Jake already pointed out, the parallels between Paul and Elijah described in the article by N.T. Wright can be seen as evidence of a fictional Paul: the author of Galatians inserted a plot element from 1 Kings into his story.

Gerard

Doug Shaver

Not exactly. He says he was converted, but he says nothing about where it happened. The Damascus Road story was invented by the author of Acts -- or passed on to him after someone else invented it.

Laura D.

I looked, but found no original source support for the cite on the Internet. We just see the same Wiki phrase popping up at various sites.

God bless,

Laura

Solo

Hi Ben,
Wright is not alone in reading Damascus as a code-name. Eisenman (in James the Brother of Jesus) argues vehemently for the connection of 'Damascus' with the wilderness east of Jordan (which apparently had a Qumran settlement in it). In that he is quite believable. This would also clear up the problem with the Nabatean reference that Laura had.

But it's a tough call, I agree. Damascus (if not Jericho) is known as the world's oldest city and prophecies against it were made often by the prophets (Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos), so it is quite possible that Paul went back there to make sure he had his revelations right.

Jiri

LanternBearer

The several Diaspora of Jews that sent them out of the Levant, spread them to the East, as far as India and China; to the west, as far as the Romans traveled; to the South back into Egypt and Ethiopia; and North into the lands just south of the Caspian Sea and into Persia and Arabia.

Alexander drove a large path east all the way into India. He was not breaking new ground, he was following the old trade routes. Those trade routes has seen the passage and settlement of Jews for generations. They were the source of the pilgrims “speaking many tongues” that traveled great distances to be in Jerusalem for Pesach at least once in their lives.

The Sunday school notion of the little Jewish enclave in Jerusalem being the only Jews extant at the time of Roman occupation is ludicrous. Paul's eventual treks and visits to the "Churches" was a result of there being Jews in far off places who kept up with Temple lore by way of the trading and pilgrimage Jews. Those congregations of Diaspora Jews were reform minded and inclined to be less legalistic than the Pharisaic center at Jerusalem. Paul was one of many visiting authoritative figures from Jerusalem. Those same congregations had also been visited by the radicals and the reform minded. In Paul’s time, the radicals were the Jesus people and the Nazarenes. Historically, there is evidence of the presence of Jews in Arabia. And, why wouldn't there be?. The Diaspora was not exactly a press gang that carried all the "captive" Jews off to the same place. Work a day Jews exploded out of the Levant into every direction when the invading armies of the various kings would be heard of coming.

Paul’s eventually documented route took him to the Northeast and then to the west. The three year suspected hiatus may have been at first an escape from Temple authorities. If one is suddenly taken by the very popular Jesus movement, what else is there to do but take it on the lam. He may have had just enough exposure to the heresy of that Jesus troublemaker and his followers to have given him the confidence to strike out a path of new conviction.

The path that Paul took and documented was dotted with Jewish congregations less inclined to be dominated by the Jerusalem Temple culture. They certainly had regular visitors from there, and Paul would have been just another of the visitors. By the time he gets things going, the ground is well broken before him with the other Jesus people that had arrived before him.

Paul was not a Jerusalem Jew. He was a Greco-Roman Jew, from Tarsus, who had built up his reputation and bona fides in Jerusalem and was a road man for the Temple authority. He probably spoke Latin, Koine Greek, Aramaic and ritual Hebrew. He was essentially a "made man" or enforcer for the Temple orthodoxy.

One of the reasons that there is little history of the eastern Tran Jordan churches is that they had been subject to much house cleaning and heresy excising in the days of the young Roman statist church that emerged in Constantinople. Much of what has been translated by the pre-Christian reformist and mystery cultists had come to be tinged with the Jesus story. Those Trans-Jordan mystery churches were far too radical in their doctrine and canon to be incorporated into the emerging Orthodoxy of the Greco-Roman Church Fathers”. Some did remain viable and have survived in minor forms into the 21st Century.

In my travels, on other business, in that part of the world, I have sat for hours and days in conversation with old holy men and translators. There are many stories and tangled mysteries that are yet to be brought to light about the presence of Jews and then Christians in the coastal areas of Arabia, the Red Sea, and the Atlantic coast of Africa.

I would recommend the work of Burton Mack and Elaine Pagels for another view of the history of that time that does not have an orthodox axe to grind. Further, there is much to be gleaned from the work of the Jesus Seminar and the various scholars engaged in that. I would also like to recommend the work of Neil Douglas-Klotz and Kamae A Miller for their writing and translations of Aramaic texts. Aramaic was the language of YSHA.

The story is ever unfolding. The construct that is the western church is much too heavily loaded for me. If one is able to digest and practice the teaching of the three years of al fresco lectures, then there is more than enough for a lifetime of contemplation, meditation and practice.

Lantern Bearer
Please, do be attentive, be intelligent, be reasonable, be responsible.

aa5874

When you say 'most people' hold Paul from the Epistles is real, are you refering to people in the Middle East? I agree that some people believe everyone in the Bible is real, but I don't know how you could say that most people hold that Paul is real.

As far as I understand, the Epistles claimed to be written by Paul, were actually written by different authors. No-one actually knows Paul or which Epistles were actually written by Paul. All we have is a name, just like the other books of the NT. www.religioustolerance.org

The entire NT is littered with erroneous information, to claim that Paul or anyone wrote anything is always questionable.

gstafleu

No, nothing that wide ranging. Just people who pop up regularly around here, either in use or in mention. You read a lot about an MJ, but not as much about an MP. I'm sure that will start, though.

Doherty e.g. seems to assume an HP. My guess would be that that's not so much a result of study and conviction, but rather stems from simply not having thought much about it.

I'm not aware of anyone else but Detering having addressed the matter in great detail. But then I don't know much. Maybe some other Forumist knows more?

Gerard

spin

My guess is that it is derived from an analysis which attempts to justify Aretas being mentioned in the narrative abobut Paul being lowered down the wall of Damascus. That's the only place I've come across the claim, but if the claim can be sustained from ancient sources it would supply a historical peg on which to hang Paul's time of writing.


spin

andrewcriddle

I think you're right that there is no direct evidence at all that Caligula gave Aretas control of Damascus.

However in terms of their general policy it is prima-facie much more plausible that Caligula would do so than that Tiberius would.

IE IF Aretas ever administered Damascus with the official approval of the Emperor then this almost certainly happened under Caligula not Tiberius.

Andrew Criddle

spin

That's certainly true. Tiberius had ordered Vitellius to go and get Aretas IV's head over Aretas's war with Herod Antipas. Fortunately, Tiberius died and Vitellius didn't feel any sympathy for Herod Antipas.

However, how would Aretas have arrived at Damascus assuming he had been given control of it by Caligula? Would he have arrived there through the territory of Philip, ie Hauran, Trachonitis etc., which Caligula had just given to Agrippa?


spin