Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bernard Muller · 02-25-2012, 09:13 PM

to aa,
You sound like you are the boss of a young reporter who does not give enough details in his stories. Why would Paul's audience be so anxious about knowing when he was in Damascus? And when he got into the basket in order to escape?
And when I say to people I went to China, or Nepal, or London, few of them asks me when. Maybe they do that in your part of the wood. And if Paul escaped from Damascus and the ethnarch of Aretas, he certainly would not go in Aretas' territory after that. And that's confirmed in Acts.
And I hope one day you will be running out of 'can't' and 'cannot'.

GakuseiDon · 02-25-2012, 09:23 PM

Hi Bernard. FYI: aa5874 has shown a remarkable determination to avoid interacting with the content of people's posts, so most of us here ignore him. I'd recommend to you to do the same. Sometimes his responses can be quite funny, but responding to him is generally a waste of time I've found.

aa5874 · 02-25-2012, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Duvduv wrote:

Quote:

But why even mention it or at least why didn't someone think to correct it?

From the perspective of Paul, I explained that. What do you think? Should Paul have said just "an ethnarch" or "the ethnarch". That would look very strange. And correct what? What is there to correct, more so, as promised by Claudius, the Jews of Corinth had their own ethnarch. And they, and Gentiles also, would know about what the title means.

Whether or not the title was given does NOT really help to date the Pauline Basket case in Damascus.

If the Pauline writings were the first to be written surely Paul should NOT have known that Acts of the Apostles would have been written perhaps up to over a hundred years later.

In 1 Cor. 11.32-33, we have an Isolated piece of USELESS information that covers a 50 year range when Paul was in a basket in Damascus.

In Galatians 1, Paul claimed he went to Arabia and then returned to Damascus but we don't know WHEN it happened if we do not have Acts of the Apostles.

We cannot date Paul from his own writings and the apologetic sources that mentioned Paul are NOT credible.

maryhelena · 02-25-2012, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to Maryhelena

Quote:

2. Historically, Aretas III ended his rule of Damascus around 63 b.c.

Paul visited Corinth. But Corinth was destroyed from 146BCE to 44BCE. That would allow only Aretas I and Aretas IV to be considered. That would eliminate Aretas II & III.

Only if you are assuming a historical NT 'Paul' - and then you have other problems to face.

Quote:

3. To assume the text is referencing Aretas IV (because of assuming a historical ‘Paul’) requires that the ethnarch of Aretas be downgraded to being nothing more than a representative of an ethnic percentage of the population of Damascus.

That ethnarch was not necessarily the only one of Aretas. But, in the context of Damascus, he was the ethnarch of Aretas.

Down graded to be only an ethnarch over an ethnic percentage of the population. Still leaves you with other problems to face.

Quote:

4. The reason why the ethnarch of Aretas would want to seize ‘Paul’ would be a matter of conjecture.

Of course, there is no explanation. But, as I recall reading, converting a Nabataean away from his native religion was considered a crime. Or Paul could have done any kind of mischief with any local Nabataean ...

And 'Paul' could well be not a historical figure....

Quote:

5. Since Aretas IV would be in Rome’s bad books after his defeat of the army of a Roman client tetrarch, in 36/37 c.e., Aretas IV is not going to be receiving any favours from Rome re having a special representative in Damascus. Thus, ‘Paul’s Damascus escape would have to be prior to 36 c.e. - which is cutting into the dating of his conversion. On top of which is the problem of Josephus having John the Baptist still alive prior to the war with between Aretas IV and Herod Antipas.

1) If the ethnarch was there before the war, it would be just keeping the status quo. No historian wrote Aretas IV was punished in any way.
2) Nowhere it is said John was alive right before the war. Josephus' remark does not say that. John could have been executed 10 years before and people could still hold a grudge against Antipas. And then, when his army was defeated, those could have claimed God punished Antipas for what he did regarding John.

According to Josephus - Tiberius gave order to make war against Aretas IV - either take him alive or kill him:

Quote:

So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria. Ant.18 ch.5

As for the John (the Baptist) story in Josephus, it has it's own problems. The gospel story-line only dates the death of JC to the time of Pilate. That rule ends around 36 c.e. - the time of the war between Herod (Antipas) and Aretas. Dating the death of JC early - 30 c.e. presents quite a problem re Aretas IV being a very angry man over the divorce of his daughter from Antipas and having to contain that anger, over the insult to his family pride, for 6/7 years. There is no reason, apart from convention, to not date the JC crucifixion story to 36 c.e. (Nikos Kokkinos has done so). And - if the JC crucifixion can be dated to 36 c.e. - then there is no logical argument to have 'Paul' in Damascus prior to this date - and, going with the usual method of dating 'Paul's's conversion - a few years after the crucifixion of JC - there is hardly any time left for 'Paul' to be in Damascus prior to the end of the rule of Aretas IV in 40 c.e.

Quote:

6. ‘Paul’s’ escape in a basket over the walls of Damascus has echoes of the Joshua’s spies being lowered over the walls of Jericho. Indicating that this story about ‘Paul’ is not historical.

There is no basket and no house on top of the walls as in 'Joshua'. So not exactly a carbon copy.

Of course not - no carbon copy - but a literary dependence.

Quote:

8. Reading the text to be referencing Aretas IV with an ethnarch in Damascus during the early part of ‘Paul’s’ ministry is to read into the text something that is not there.

Why not, if Jesus died around 30, it is very possible that Paul, at the very beginning of his preaching, was in Damascus when Aretas IV was still ruling Nabatea. Actually, using data from the Pauline epistles and Acts, I can pinpoint the date at 38.

So, add your 8 years on to a crucifixion of JC in 36 c.e. and you now have 'Paul' in Damascus in 44 c.e. - way past the time of Aretas IV.

Quote:

9. One can reject the text as an interpolation or view it as some sort of dramatic role play. In which case there is nothing whatsoever, in ‘Paul’s’ writing, by which to date his activities.

Not only from the epistles, but also with Acts, (and critical investigation!), I could pinpoint the dating of Paul's main activities from 35 to 58, sometimes year by year.

What you can't do is provide historical evidence for the existence of the NT 'Paul'.

aa5874 · 02-25-2012, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to aa,
You sound like you are the boss of a young reporter who does not give enough details in his stories. Why would Paul's audience be so anxious about knowing when he was in Damascus? And when he got into the basket in order to escape?
And when I say to people I went to China, or Nepal, or London, few of them asks me when. Maybe they do that in your part of the wood. And if Paul escaped from Damascus and the ethnarch of Aretas, he certainly would not go in Aretas' territory after that. And that's confirmed in Acts.
And I hope one day you will be running out of 'can't' and 'cannot'.

Right now, I dealing with the Presumption that all we have are the Pauline writings.

Again, if all we have are the Pauline writings then we have NO data to properly date the activities of Paul.

There were FOUR Kings called Aretas and Damascus and Arabia were probably in existence before the end of 1 BCE and The Pauline letters have NO dates affixed to them.

The Pauline writings are Completely Useless to date the activities of Paul.

The Pauline writings MUST be read in conjunction with the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles to assemble a chronology of the Pauline character.

However, we still would NOT be able to re-construct when he wrote letters to the churches because NOT even the author of Acts ever made such a claim.

aa5874 · 02-25-2012, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Hi Bernard. FYI: aa5874 has shown a remarkable determination to avoid interacting with the content of people's posts, so most of us here ignore him. I'd recommend to you to do the same. Sometimes his responses can be quite funny, but responding to him is generally a waste of time I've found.

You waited too long to tell him.

Bernard has IMPLODED already.

He may put himself on ignore and SOON we won't hear from him again.

aa5874 · 02-25-2012, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

As for the John (the Baptist) story in Josephus, it has it's own problems. The gospel story-line only dates the death of JC to the time of Pilate. That rule ends around 36 c.e. - the time of the war between Herod (Antipas) and Aretas. Dating the death of JC early - 30 c.e. presents quite a problem re Aretas IV being a very angry man over the divorce of his daughter from Antipas and having to contain that anger, over the insult to his family pride, for 6/7 years.....

I found this in Wikipedia.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aretas_IV_Philopatris

Quote:

...The classical author Josephus connects this battle, which occurred during the winter of AD 26/27, with the beheading of John the Baptist, but not necessarily occurring at the same time...

This is interesting since this would mean in the Synoptics Jesus story, the character was crucified no later than 28/29 CE and no later than 30/31 CE in the gJohn's story.

maryhelena · 02-25-2012, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

As for the John (the Baptist) story in Josephus, it has it's own problems. The gospel story-line only dates the death of JC to the time of Pilate. That rule ends around 36 c.e. - the time of the war between Herod (Antipas) and Aretas. Dating the death of JC early - 30 c.e. presents quite a problem re Aretas IV being a very angry man over the divorce of his daughter from Antipas and having to contain that anger, over the insult to his family pride, for 6/7 years.....

I found this in Wikipedia.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aretas_IV_Philopatris

Quote:

...The classical author Josephus connects this battle, which occurred during the winter of AD 26/27, with the beheading of John the Baptist, but not necessarily occurring at the same time...

This is interesting since this would mean in the Synoptics Jesus story, the character was crucified no later than 28/29 CE and no later than 30/31 CE in the gJohn's story.

It looks to me that the Wikipedia article has a typo there - it's 36/37 c.e. for the war between Aretas IV and Herod (Antipas). A war, taking Josephus at his word............that took place shortly prior to the death of Tiberius. It makes no sense for the war to have been at the Wikipedia dates of 26/27 c.e. - and Tiberius waits 10 years before he sends Vitellius to go and get the head of Aretas....

Quote:

So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men; he also took with him all those of light armature, and of the horsemen which belonged to them, and were drawn out of those kingdoms which were under the Romans, and made haste for Petra, and came to Ptolemais. But as he was marching very busily, and leading his army through Judea, the principal men met him, and desired that he would not thus march through their land; for that the laws of their country would not permit them to overlook those images which were brought into it, of which there were a great many in their ensigns; so he was persuaded by what they said, and changed that resolution of his which he had before taken in this matter. Whereupon he ordered the army to march along the great plain, while he himself, with Herod the tetrarch and his friends, went up to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice to God, an ancient festival of the Jews being then just approaching; and when he had been there, and been honorably entertained by the multitude of the Jews, he made a stay there for three days, within which time he deprived Jonathan of the high priesthood, and gave it to his brother Theophilus. But when on the fourth day letters came to him, which informed him of the death of Tiberius, he obliged the multitude to take an oath of fidelity to Caius; he also recalled his army, and made them every one go home, and take their winter quarters there, since, upon the devolution of the empire upon Caius, Ant. 18 ch.5

John the Baptist

Quote:

According to this passage, the execution of John was blamed for a defeat Herod suffered c. AD 36.

aa5874 · 02-26-2012, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

It looks to me that the Wikipedia article has a typo there - it's 36/37 c.e. for the war between Aretas IV and Herod (Antipas). A war, taking Josephus at his word............that took place shortly prior to the death of Tiberius. It makes no sense for the war to have been at the Wikipedia dates of 26/27 c.e. - and Tiberius waits 10 years before he sends Vitellius to go and get the head of Aretas....

Based on Josephus, there is an error. 36/37 CE appears to be a most reasonable time period.

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-26-2012, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Will you admit that arguments from silence are a type of indirect evidence? (Y/N)

Will you admit that a collection of indirect evidence can accumulate and become corroborating evidence? (Y/N)

My answer is "silence". Take your own conclusions... :wave:

So I take it that means, “No.” :frown:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-25-2012, 09:13 PM	#321
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	to aa, You sound like you are the boss of a young reporter who does not give enough details in his stories. Why would Paul's audience be so anxious about knowing when he was in Damascus? And when he got into the basket in order to escape? And when I say to people I went to China, or Nepal, or London, few of them asks me when. Maybe they do that in your part of the wood. And if Paul escaped from Damascus and the ethnarch of Aretas, he certainly would not go in Aretas' territory after that. And that's confirmed in Acts. And I hope one day you will be running out of 'can't' and 'cannot'.

02-25-2012, 09:23 PM	#322
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Hi Bernard. FYI: aa5874 has shown a remarkable determination to avoid interacting with the content of people's posts, so most of us here ignore him. I'd recommend to you to do the same. Sometimes his responses can be quite funny, but responding to him is generally a waste of time I've found.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.