Minimalist

I doubt that although D. Duck is probably a more compelling case than a HJ.

DCHindley

Then why did Augustus confirm Herod as King of the Jews when Herod had just wholeheartedly supported Augustus' enemy during the civil war? Because he was stupid? He knew Herod would come through with auxiliary troops or money whenever he needed them. He was also loyal to his clients.

The Romans chose to have client kingdoms between themselves and the Parthians as a buffer zone, but they were also very important routes for trade goods coming in from Parthia. Herod was all business, and it was important to chose the right despots to manage those client kingdoms.

Damascus was FORMERLY capital of Syria, like 300 years previously. Antioch had that honor for quite a long time. Damascus was important for trade, no question. But so was Petra, and the Hauran region squarely between Damascus and Petra, which Augustus also added to Herod's kingdom. In spite of being temporarily out of favor with Augustus, and conflict with the Nabateans (Aretas' predecessor), Herod managed to turn this region into a safe, profitable conduit for pilgrims as well as trade.

Damascus was considered one of the city states of the Decapolis, in spite of not being contiguous with the other cities in that region. It was a friggin' large city, no superpower. I may be wrong about Damascus being a personal possession of the emperors similar to Egypt, but client states were passed from ruler to ruler like hot potatoes.

Aretas IV may not have been very tactful (assuming the crown before he received Roman sanction, by taking personal vengeance on Antipas without asking for permission or pleading a case before the emperor, etc), but the Nabatean Arabs under Aretas ran a damn fine and very large trading network that benefited the Romans tremendously. It is no accident that he was able to retain his crown for 48 years!

The Syrian "kingdom" of Chalcis in the mountains of Lebanon was given to Herod's grandson Herod by Claudius (41-48 CE), and later to Agrippa II (48-53 CE). Herod of Chalcis' son Aristobulus was granted rule of Armenia Minor by Nero (55-72 CE), and Nero also gave him Chalcis to rule as well (57-92 CE).

Client kings all go through periods of favor and disfavor, with little more than a change in emperors to trigger a reversal. Each emperor has his own agenda. Why would you find it so bizarre that one of the emperors could have granted a client king, even one who was in disfavor by a preceding emperor, more than one domain to rule??

Stupid is as stupid does ... silly.

DCH

spin

Umm, tangent, wouldn't you say? The specific issue was about Pliny and his comment about the Essenes, which doesn't fit the sort of geographical data that M.V.Agrippa was thought to have provided.


spin

maryhelena

Why am I running with the Rachel Elior position on the Essenes? Basically the answer is not so much to do with the Essenes, in and of themselves, but to do with Josephus. And the reason why I am interested in Josephus has to do with the apostle Paul. And the reason I am interested in the apostle Paul has to do with the gospel storyline of Jesus of Nazareth.

I have been in the mythicist camp for over 25 years (getting started with John Hick’s ‘Myth of God Incarnate). From the mythicist position, I did not see any reason to assume the historicity of the apostle Paul - especially so when I realized the many parallels between the apostle Paul and Josephus. So, my interest in the Paul/Josephus connection is one of longstanding - and when, on this site, the Rachel Elior argument over Josephus inventing the Essenes was put forward - well, my interest is obviously going to be great! Consequently, I took my old idea down from the shelve, so to speak, and began a renewed examination of the writings of ‘Josephus’ in regard to the NT storyline. The outcome of which I did post on the Elior thread. Obviously, the final word re ‘Josephus’ and the NT storyline is yet to be said - but I do think that “Josephus’ needs a far more in depth investigation than is usually done. The TF and the James passage are not the only avenues worthy of investigation.

‘Josephus’ is still being used, and used very publically as indicated by a recent comment by Geza Vermes (posted to the Rachel Havrelock thread) to support a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Obviously then, any forward movements re either the TF or the James passage, are not filtering through, either to the public or to prominent/public scholars. If no new, conclusive, archeologically finds are going to be found that will settle the historical verse mythicist arguments over Jesus of Nazareth - then it could well be that the Battle Royal over this issue might relate to ‘Josephus’. That is why I have chosen to run with Rachel Elior’ argument - it opens up, not only the Essene/Dead Sea Scroll connection - it opens up the whole Josephan landscape for serious questioning - and hopefully a re-evaulation.

spin

Mythicism regarding christianity is just the same as historicism, but negative. The skeptic's one permanently useful tool is doubt.

What has mythicism got to do with Paul? The letters don't claim anything mythical about Paul. Paul's just this ordinary guy, you know? The texts indicate a man who converts people to a religion and writes follow-up letters to manipulate his newly-formed flocks. Nothing mythical at all.

Someone wrote the letters. The easiest solution is that it was the fellow who claims to have written them. It doesn't require any suspension of disbelief. The gospels on the other hand are anonymous works that cannot be located in time or context. It may be that Paul's letters are a fraud, but that only complicates things. You have to work harder to justify the fraud.

The religious development of the Jesus story on the other hand does require either something behind it or the will to have something behind it and so it developed.

We are parallel finding creatures of habit. When we are in new situations we find parallels with old ones to tell us how to act. Finding parallels is not in itself reflective of any meaningfully relevant parallels in the real world.

I really don't see the point in putting the name "Josephus" in quotes when we have a historical reference to the man and we have texts which fit a moment in history, a moment that the historical references support.

That's not a reflection on Josephus, but on people who are meddling in affairs they are not really qualified to. Vermes is a religionist whose credibility outside a very restricted field of expertise is compromised. Don't shoot Josephus because of Vermes. Treat him as a historical source -- with all the modern historians' doubts.

Even hardened religionists will admit that some of the TF is tainted, so all you need to work on is the arbitrary nature of their position. How do they know what to throw away and what to keep? They don't. They are not being historical about the issue. Therefore their conclusions are crap. The TF is useless for a historian.

But you have nothing but Elior's hypothesis. Nothing more. Dead end.


spin

maryhelena

What does the mythicist postion have to do with the apostle Paul?

Everything......

From a mythicist position that holds to the opinion that Jesus of Nazareth was not historical - the existence of a historical apostle Paul is questionable. If no historical Jesus of Nazareth lived during the time of the gospel storyline i.e. the 15th year of Tiberius - then there were no followers of said Jesus of Nazareth for Saul/Paul to be persecuting. Consequently, the NT storyline regarding the apostle Paul cannot be a historical account about Christian beginnings in the years attributed to the apostle Paul in the NT.

JoeWallack

JW:
Yet more questions/observations with seemingly little/no point. You ask a lot of questions for someone from New Jersey.

JW:
Yes, Paul precedes Acts by about 100 years as Justin, c. 155, has never heard of Acts. Why you think this increases the argument for authentic 2 Cor 11:32 I don't know and I don't want to know.

JW:
Not only do you have no point here, your logic is backwards. Awareness of Acts 9:22-24 creates force to remove the error of 2 Cor. 11. You want to say that an Interpolator, post Acts, is unlikely to have created the error of 2 Cor. 11. Remember, you have a 100 year time frame to forge before Acts, and true disciples of Paul would not have accepted the historical claims of Apostles not named "Paul" being accurate teachers of all things Jesus anyway.

My own guess is something in between. Paul knew that Aretas was not King of Damascus in his time and wrote something close to "Damascus". A copyist/interpolator/forger just thought a major/known city like Damascus made for a better story than the city Paul wrote and may have even believed that's what Paul meant (Paul referred to an Arabian (where he was known to have spent time) city that was changed to "Damascus").



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Petergdi

Acts can't be that late because the writer of Acts is unaware that "bishop" (episkopos) is anything other than a synonym for "elder" (presbuter). In Acts 20 the people who are called "elders" in verse 17 are called "bishops" by Paul in verse 28. This is a positive indication that Acts was written when a bishop and an elder were the same thing.

Peter.

Amaleq13

How did you eliminate the possibility that Paul persecuted those who first originated the mythical Christ and that these individuals were subsequently mythologized into disciples?

spin

Actually, you haven't said anything about what the mythicist position has to do with Paul. The mythicist position can happily accommodate a Paul. He could be responsible for the revelation of the new religion, so whether Paul was or was not as presented in the letters, his existence is irrelevant to mythicism.

It's fine to doubt Paul, but to go beyond that you need evidence and reasoning to back it up. You don't seem to have these.

There is a personality behind the Pauline letters that is coherent and needs to be dealt with when attempting to make claims that a Paul may not have existed. Unlike the gospels, the Pauline material requires no suspension of common sense. The only major problem it has is how to date it independently.

If you want to doubt Paul, why not doubt Lucian of Samosata or Petronius (the writer of the Satyricon)? Why pick Paul out for special treatment?


spin