outhouse

sorry I was falling into that.

thanks, point taken

Bernard Muller

to Maryhelena
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.

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

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 ...

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.

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

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.

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.

aa5874

You cannot invent your own story because the NT is non-historical with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

I am done with and will not accept speculation and imagination. We have hundreds of writings about the Jesus character and we can easily LOGICALLY deduce when the Jesus cult most likely started and when it is likely Paul wrote the supposed letters to churches.

At least Paul did write that he was the LAST to see Jesus, there were people in Christ BEFORE him and that he persecuted the Faith he PRESENTLY preached.

Paul was DEAD Last in the Canon.

Duvduv

Isn't it interesting that unlike Acts Corinthians had to bother to even mention the name of Aretas in the first place? It makes no difference whatsoever to the plot, and the author would have known there were more than one Aretas anyway.

It is even more interesting that the author of Acts or its editor(s) would make a change to the story reflecting uncertainty about Aretas IV control over Damascus, but not correct the reference in 2 Corinthians. Those who believe that a Historical Paul wrote Corinthians must consider it to be an interesting anomaly at the very least.

But assuming the writer of Acts never saw Corinthians it's understandable that his own storyline was different in this respect and in others such as Acts 9:25 which says that followers lowered him in the basket, but in Corinthians no mention of who lowered him is indicated in 2 Corinthians 11:33. And of course the story in Acts fills up with details about the Jews that the author of Corinthians didn't care or know about, and Corinthians doesn't even explain why the ethnarch was after him.

I simply assume that the writer of Corinthians wasn't expert in history and knew there were a couple of Aretas and that one had controlled Damascus. But then the issue would be, WHY would this be so important to mention only a single time when it makes no difference to the story? It sounds as if he is trying to MAGNIFY the importance of the "danger" presented by Paul since presumably a little old governor or ethnarch is not making the decision on his own, but as a representative of the great king himself to whom "Paul" is such a big threat.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
Cor11:32-33 is in a part of 2Corinthians, that is 10:1-13:10, which is the main part of one original letter. That letter was combined with two others to form 2Corinthians (that's my deductions).

In that one, Paul is trying to get back with the Christians of Corinth, who, for the most part, had rejected him. That's what I wrote for introduction:
"Obviously the preceding (pitiful) letter (2aCorinthians) did not work. Now Paul is taking a position of strength and goes on the attack against other preachers (false apostles). He also acknowledges the criticism against him and his apparent lack of credentials as an apostle. On the later, Paul's main weapon is the revelation of a vision he allegedly had fourteen years ago (that would put it in 42C.E., the likely year when Paul was picked up by Barnabas to become an (approved) apostle: Ac11:25)."

Anyway, in it, Paul is very emotional and writing (or dictating) from his guts and not too organized.
He admits he is boasting because he has to do it, even if that makes him look like a fool. And he has to do it because other preachers do just that, boasting (apparently with success) and he does not want to be left behind. Then he goes again explaining his credentials, how much he worked for his ministry, how many times he was harmed & suffered in so many ways because of his traveling & preaching (likely exaggerating, but who is counting). Then at the end, probably to give an example of what he had to go through, he tells in a few words about his escape from Damascus.
Why mention the ethnarch? Likely, the bigger your enemy, the more you (Paul in this case) are important.

aa5874

Every single piece of information in any writing of antiquity is EXTREMELY important.

The mention of King Aretas in 1 Cor. 11 is the ONLY piece of information that appears to place Paul in a basket in Damascus sometime up to 40 CE.

However, using the Pauline writings alone it is extremely difficult to follow his movements and activities.

We can logically deduce that Acts of the Apostles was composed BEFORE the Pauline writings because without Acts of the Apostles the supposed chronology of movements and activities of Paul would be virtually incomprehensible in the letters.

If we remove Acts of the Apostles from the Canon we know very little about Paul in his own writings.

The so-called details of Paul are scattered, scarce and isolated in the letters.

When was Paul really in the basket in Damascus during the reign of Aretas in the Pauline letters????

Was Paul in the basket in Damascus AFTER he returned from Arabia or went to Arabia from the basket in Damascus????

Other sources Must be known to understand the Pauline writings.

And further, the other Authors of the NT Canon Gospels did NOT need the Pauline writings since the details of Jesus are not all in the letters.

DUMP or Destroy every Pauline writing including the Pastorals and NO data would be lost to compose the Gospels.

On the other hand, if we DUMP or Destroy the Short-Ending gMark we would NOT have the Long-Ending gMark, gMatthew and much of gLuke.

The Pauline writings were most likely written after the Jesus story and Acts of the Apostles were already known.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv:
Paul was not a historian or giving history lesson. So king Aretas was enough. Maybe for some reason that king was already known in Corinth, or most likely nobody cared: ethnarch of a king was impressive enough. Anyway, if anyone then was ever interested, they would certainly know which time they and Paul were living in and determine that was Aretas IV. Aretas III died in 62 BCE. A bit saying: hey, when I was in London, I saw queen Elizabeth. No need to say Elizabeth II.

Duvduv

But why even mention it or at least why didn't someone think to correct it? It has no bearing on the story at all. Especially if the author didn't know for sure whether this Aretas didn't control Damascus.
'

aa5874

One does NOT need to be an historian to make a written statement about their activities.

In any event, if we do NOT have Acts of the Apostles and the Gospels it is virtually impossible to reconstruct the Pauline chronology of events.

If Acts of the Apostles and the Gospels were NOT already written or known then we cannot reconstruct Paul's chronology.

King Aretas IV was king from 9 BCE to 40 CE so Paul could have been in his BASKET for about 50 years.

Now, if Paul wrote to the Corinthians and claimed he was in a Basket in Damascus and Acts of the Apostles was NOT known to them how in the world would they know when it happened?

Consider this statement "When I was in London, I saw queen Elizabeth".

What is wrong with the statement???

It has NO real data to date the sighting of Elizabeth!!!

The most obvious question would follow "When were you in London"?

What year, what month, what week, what day were you in London?

The day you were in London the Queen may have been in Spain or on a PLANE!!!

So what year was Paul in the basket in Damascus???

Perhaps the year Paul was in the basket Aretas was ALREADY dead.

Now we can't use the author of Acts to corroborate Paul-- he is a NOTORIOUS Fiction writer.

Bernard Muller

Duvduv wrote:
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.