Minimalist

I believe you are correct, Andrew. The Corinth thing is merely the most obvious gap because xtians swear that "Paul" (an allegedly first century writer) was there dealing with established Jewish and new xtian communities.

I only recently learned two facts about Corinth, though. One is that Nero flirted with the idea of digging a canal there and actually began the work. In 67 some 6,000 slaves were sent to him as a gift by Vespasian who was in the early stages of putting down the Jewish Revolt of 66. Obviously, these slaves were "Jewish." Second, Vespasian, after he became emperor, found it necessary to re-found the colony which certainly suggests that Caesar's original try was far from a going concern. In the late first century BC, Roman civil wars culminating at Philippi and Actium may well have dampened the growth of the colony. It would not have been until the Pax Romana that Corinth would have really been able to get going and the evidence of Vespasian's action seems to indicate that it needed a booster shot.

But Vespasian was a minimum of 20 years after "Paul."

spin

Try and ask meaningful questions.

As a guard keeps watch. The text is clear that the ethnarch is in Damascus.

You add "a garrison". What else would you like to add?

Again, you choose the silly possibility rather than reading the text naturally.

Feldman footnotes the issue saying that it contradicts Philo, that Josephus has probably been altered and that "archontes" should be read for "ethnarch". So we need Strabo.

See above.

Look in Liddell and Scott for the verb frourew to understand "to keep watch".

Not established.

Liddell and Scott give "sheik" as a possible meaning of the term.

Where did you get this "entire city garrison" idea?? If you want to exaggerate, try "legion".

I'm trying to read what the text actually says. If you don't like what the text says, does that give you the inclination to be inventive?

There is evidence that Pauline works have been interpolated. Have you any reason to believe that Paul simply made things up?


spin

maryhelena

I’ve had another look at the JM list re Paul, Aretas and Damascus.

The lay of the land seems to be this:

So:

1) Not enough evidence to support an interpolation.

2) A desire to retain the ethnarch or governor from Aretas in Damascus - hence a desire to retain a measure of authenticity for the Paul storyline - and thus for a historical Paul.

3) A willingness to consider the Damascus reference as being figurative and not literal.

In regard to 3). I don’t think the argument put forward by N.T. Wright (in Paul, Arabia and Elijah) particularly persuasive. Sure, Elijah was zealous for pure worship when he was out to kill the prophets of Baal but zeal is not enough to make the connection between Elijah and the apostle Paul. Particularly when the gospel account of the transfiguration connects Jesus to both Moses and Elijah.

However, I do think that N.T. Wright is on the right track here i.e. to look at the Damascus, Paul and Aretas connection as being figurative not historical. And of course, Paul, himself,(in Galations 5:21-25) makes the figurative connection between Mount Sinia and Hagar - saying in fact that “Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem....”.

Consequently, it is quite within the bounds of Paul’ own methods to view his reference to Damascus in a similar fashion. Especially so when this passage is not historically accurate in relationship to the time line of Paul’ storyline.

On a figurative or symbolic interpretation of the Damascus passage in 2 Cor:11:32,33 we have these possible views:

1) Damascus can be seen as being symbolic of the Gentile world, a world which the apostle Paul has chosen as his ministry.

2) The escape over the wall of Damascus is possibly modeled upon the escape of the spies sent by Joshua to Jericho - hence would indicate that Paul saw himself as following in the footsteps of Joshua - the leader to conquer the Promised Land: Paul the leader, the servant, who is the light for the Gentiles. (Isaiah 49:6). Now that makes one think of that “light from heaven” that suddenly flashed around Paul on the road to Damascus....

3) Since there was no rule of Damascus by Aretes during the NT time frame for the apostle Paul, this reference can be viewed as being symbolic of a 100 year time frame i.e. the 100 years between the defeat of the army of Aretes III (in 64/63 BC)and the victory of the army of Aretes IV over Herod Antipas (in 36/37 CE).

4) The year 36/37 CE: ( the year the NT storyline places Paul in Damascus. Wikipedia dates his conversion to 33 CE, followed by 3 years in Arabia and then back to Damascus).This is the date of the defeat of the army of Herod Antipas by the army of Aretas IV. This year is 40 years from the death of Herod the Great and 7 years from 29/30 CE - both of these dates being relevant for the gospel storyline and its own use of number symbolism. Both the number 7 and the number 40 also being relevant to the Jericho story i.e the 40 years of wilderness wandering and the 7 days of marching around the wall of Jericho.

Literal verse a figurative or symbolic interpretation of 2 Cor:11.32-33? The answer should be one that provides some measure of insight regarding the storyline. Just saying Paul, or whoever the writer, was a bad historian is really a dead end - it answers nothing at all....A better approach is try to assemble the literary, the symbolic and figurative, and the prophetic tools that were available for the writer - and then check out where these tools have been applied. Of course, historical facts have also been utilized and historical names have been dropped into the storyline - but to assume from this that everything else is also historical is to deny the writer the many other tools at his disposal. And, in a medium like the NT that is very short-sighted....

Additional points that weight against a historical Paul are the parallels with the first 30 years of the life story of Josephus. And Josephus, that great Roman/Jewish historian makes not a mention of the apostle Paul - he has John the Baptist, James and Jesus - but no mention at all of the main early Christian crusader...just dead silence......And yet they could well have crossed paths! Paul spends 3 years in Arabia, goes back to Damascus, goes to Jerusalem - and then, 14 years later goes again to Jerusalem - which will be about 51 CE. Josephus was 14 years of age in 51 CE - and he tells us that “the high priests and principle men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law”.

For one so precocious at such an early age, Josephus shows complete indifference to the goings on re early Christianity that were happening right under his own nose in his own city....a missed opportunity here for Josephus - or a purposeful silence....

Minimalist

....or, there was nothing to see.

maryhelena

Off course......since the possibility is there that neither Josephus or Paul are historical i.e. someone or some others writing under those names.....

Maybe I should starting writing *if historicity is assumed, therefore......* before mentioning any NT or Josephan accounts of the assumed activities..........

spin

Check Suetonius, Vespasian 5 (2/3 of the way through).


spin

Ben C Smith

For convenience, spin is referring to Suetonius, Life of Vespasian 5.6b:

Et unus ex nobilibus captivis Iosephus, cum coiceretur in vincula, constantissime asseveravit fore ut ab eodem brevi solveretur, verum iam imperatore.

And one of his high-born prisoners, Josephus by name, as he was being put in chains, declared most confidently that he would soon be released by the same man [Vespasian], who would then, however, be emperor.

Ben.

Minimalist

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...espasian*.html


Here's a link. What are we looking for, Spin?

Minimalist

Thanks for filling in the blank, Ben.

maryhelena

Thanks Ben, for supplying the relevant quote.

Wikipedia dates Suetonius to around 69/75 CE – to after 130 CE.

Josephus ‘War’ is published around 75 CE - hence the Josephan storyline is already in circulation prior to Suetonius writing anything re Josephus and Vespasian.

My position on the historicity of Josephus is that I have doubts about it.

As for the apostle Paul, well.....from a mythicist position re Jesus of Nazareth.....no reason to assume that he would be historical.