Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 05-26-2009, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Justin and Tertullian seem to be making a claim about the extent of the province of Roman Arabia.

You could obviously argue that the 2nd century situation is irrelevant to the time of Paul but whatever its relevance the claim seems interesting and puzzling.

It is the trajectory of the information that you cannot know. That makes it fruitless for historical purposes. The conjectures that you place on it won't get beyond being conjectures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Is this a claim about the extent of Roman Arabia ? and if so does it make sense ? or am I misunderstanding what is being claimed ?

The information has probably been received directly from a written source, so your authors are not claiming anything themselves. They don't seem to have been aware that Damascus was being administered by Rome. (But generically Damascus might be thought of in the ancient terms as being in Arabia, as it was before the Romans came.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

(I don't think it at all likely that Justin's statement is in any way based on Corinthians.)

You're probably right.

spin

JoeWallack · 05-27-2009, 06:56 AM

JW:
Previous inventory of reasons for error:

No external evidence that Aretas was king of Damascus at this time:

2 Corinthians is commonly dated to c. 55. It is unlikely that Aretas was king of Damascus at this time for the following reasons:

1) Dating. The externally known Aretas IV reigned until 40.

2) Geographical. Aretas IV was king of Nabataea, on the wrong side of Israel from Damascus.

3) Conflict. Aretas IV was in conflict with Rome late in his career.

4) Source. Aretas III did control Damascus in the 1st century BCE establishing a source for error.

5) Significance. It's unlikely that Rome would have granted outside control to a major city like Damascus.

Obviously you can add to the above that in general "Paul" lacks credibility as an author. This is mindful of the Lysanias error.

Added to the above is "Luke's" reaction to Paul:

2 Corinthians 11:32

Quote:

In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take me:

Verses:

Acts 9

Quote:

22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ.

23 And when many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel together to kill him:

24 but their plot became known to Saul. And they watched the gates also day and night that they might kill him:

JW:
Note that "Luke" has exorcised the reference to Aretas. "Luke" likely used Josephus as a source and therefore knew that Aretas was not king over Damascus at this time. This is the type of thing "Luke" refers to in her opening:

Luke 1

Quote:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us,

2 even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,

3 it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus;

4 that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed.

Note that "Luke's" preferred source is Josephus. And why shouldn't it be since Josephus was the official Jewish/Roman historian of first century Israel. Ironically here though, "Luke" prefers Josephus over Paul as the best source for what Paul wrote.

Joseph

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

Minimalist · 05-27-2009, 09:40 AM

Quote:

But maybe that's not such a bad thing anyway.......were there not dozens of other epistles that did not make the cut i.e. made it into the canon of the NT?

There is always going to be a multitude of interpretations - just as Christianity itself became a multitude of sects. Can't remember who said it but the term 'mother of heretics' says a lot about Christianity....

We aren't really disagreeing, my dear. I just get pissed off with the xtian types who think that this stuff is the word of god, or something!

And of course you are right. There were scads of writings which did not pass muster with the power brokers who decided what made it into the so-called NT.

the_cave · 05-27-2009, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Note that "Luke" has exorcised the reference to Aretas. "Luke" likely used Josephus as a source and therefore knew that Aretas was not king over Damascus at this time.

Ok--but then, 2 Cor 11:32 predates Acts. Bolstering the case for Pauline authorship.

Furthermore, without Acts 9:22-24, there is no basis for an interpolator to do anything with 2 Cor 11. There's nothing to harmonize. So what could be the motivation for putting it there?

maryhelena · 05-27-2009, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:

Obviously you can add to the above that in general "Paul" lacks credibility as an author. This is mindful of the Lysanias error.

Added to the above is "Luke's" reaction to Paul:

2 Corinthians 11:32

Quote:

In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take me:
Verses:

Acts 9

JW:
Note that "Luke" has exorcised the reference to Aretas. "Luke" likely used Josephus as a source and therefore knew that Aretas was not king over Damascus at this time. This is the type of thing "Luke" refers to in her opening:

Note that "Luke's" preferred source is Josephus. And why shouldn't it be since Josephus was the official Jewish/Roman historian of first century Israel. Ironically here though, "Luke" prefers Josephus over Paul as the best source for what Paul wrote.

If Luke, in Acts, has set himself up to be correcting Paul in 2 Corinthians - how come he himself falls prey to the same type of error that he is supposedly setting himself up to fix......

Luke has made a very clear statement regarding the rule of Lysanias of Abilene in the 15th year of Tiberius - a statement that is clearly historically wrong. Paul, on the other hand, has left his inference regarding Aretas ruling Damascus in the time frame of the apostle Paul rather ambigious.

If Luke is being accused of correcting Paul by leaving Aretes out of his own storyline re Paul and Damascus - it would be a case of the kettle calling the pot black....

Much better to look for intent on the part of both Luke and Paul regarding their use of historical data within a context of prophetic interpretation and symbolism.

maryhelena · 05-27-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

But maybe that's not such a bad thing anyway.......were there not dozens of other epistles that did not make the cut i.e. made it into the canon of the NT?

There is always going to be a multitude of interpretations - just as Christianity itself became a multitude of sects. Can't remember who said it but the term 'mother of heretics' says a lot about Christianity....

We aren't really disagreeing, my dear. I just get pissed off with the xtian types who think that this stuff is the word of god, or something!

And of course you are right. There were scads of writings which did not pass muster with the power brokers who decided what made it into the so-called NT.

No worry re my posts and Christian apologetics.......

Toto · 05-27-2009, 12:05 PM

This topic popped up on the JM list, and one post there reminded me that the linguistic analysis of this section indicates that the reference to Damascus is most likely an interpolation.

There is also an interesting paper by NT Wright here connecting the references to Damascus to the references to Elijah in 1 Kings.

maryhelena · 05-27-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This topic popped up on the JM list, and one post there reminded me that the linguistic analysis of this section indicates that the reference to Damascus is most likely an interpolation.

There is also an interesting paper by NT Wright here connecting the references to Damascus to the references to Elijah in 1 Kings.

I had a quick look at the JM postings - best point I found was this one.....

Quote:

"The historicity of Paul is the last line of defense in the battle to save the
veracity of the Bible." Jake from JM list.

the_cave · 05-27-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It's just that it can't seriously be taken any other way.

Again, would an ethnarch actually be in control of all Damascus, or not?

Quote:

This ethnarch is connected with Damascus and his action was to guard (frourew, a verb usually taken to mean "to defend")

Or "to keep watch". The idea that the ruler of Damascus has a garrison guarding the entire city solely for the purposes of catching Paul is absurd. It can't mean what you say it means.

Quote:

Relevance?

The relevance is, you can have an ethnarch in a city who is not the governor of a city.

Quote:

(When you can quote me what Strabo actually wrote, as cited by JE then we can see exactly what it means

I don't think I can, but the quotation is actually from Josephus (as JE says, "Strabo, in 'Ant.' xiv. 7, § 2", following the citation of Ant. just above it in the entry). So you'll find the reference there, in Josephus--also see Ant. xix. 5, § 2.

Quote:

I fear that you'll find that an ethnarch in Alexandria means that he is in control of something in Alexandria

Yes, he was in control of the Jewish community. But certainly not Alexandria.

Quote:

and that an ethnarch of the Jews connects him to the Jews just as an ethnarch of Aretas connects him to Aretas, so an ethnarch of Aretas in Damascus says that he had control in Damascus

Control of what in Damascus?

Quote:

If so, what else are you willing to write off without any tangible reason?

Tangible reasons:

1) efrourei means "to keep watch"
2) an ethnarch in Damascus doesn't have to mean the ruler of Damascus
3) there's no evidence yet that the ruler of Damascus would be an ethnarch
4) the idea that the ruler of Damascus had his entire city garrison on alert in order to capture Paul is implausible no matter who wrote it.

The point is, the situation under your reading is so implausible that there's nothing to be gained by removing authorship from Paul. Even if your reading is correct, whoever wrote it is clearly making it up. So why not Paul?

andrewcriddle · 05-27-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

BTW, the status of Corinth in the mid first century is equally questionable. Re-founded by Julius Caesar in 44BC as a Roman colony one wonders how many "Jews" might have been living there a mere century later. In fact, a mid second century Greek writer, Pausanias, noted all sorts of shrines and temples in Corinth a century AFTER the alleged Paul and failed to note any sort of "Jewish" or "Christian" communities.

Odd, eh?

Pausanias does not AFAIK ever refer to Christians or to Jews in Greece at all. (He does mention Jews living in Palestine) IE it is not just in his acount of Corinth that he ignores minority groups.

We have evidence from a letter quoted by Philo of a Jewish presence in Greece (including Corinth) Embassy to Gaius

Quote:

Concerning the holy city I must now say what is necessary. It, as I have already stated, is my native country, and the metropolis, not only of the one country of Judaea, but also of many, by reason of the colonies which it has sent out from time to time into the bordering districts of Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria in general, and especially that part of it which is called Coelo-Syria, and also with those more distant regions of Pamphylia, Cilicia, the greater part of Asia Minor as far as Bithynia, and the furthermost corners of Pontus. And in the same manner into Europe, into Thessaly, and Boeotia, and Macedonia, and Aetolia, and Attica, and Argos, and Corinth and all the most fertile and wealthiest districts of Peloponnesus. And not only are the continents full of Jewish colonies, but also all the most celebrated islands are so too; such as Euboea, and Cyprus, and Crete.

Andrew Criddle

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

05-27-2009, 12:05 PM	#47
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This topic popped up on the JM list, and one post there reminded me that the linguistic analysis of this section indicates that the reference to Damascus is most likely an interpolation. There is also an interesting paper by NT Wright here connecting the references to Damascus to the references to Elijah in 1 Kings.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.