Chris Weimer

Michael Wise though argues this on the presumption that 4Q521 explicitly refers to the Messiah, when it should better be rendered "anointed ones" (i.e. priests). We had a debate about it here.

spin

The last word on line 1 of frag. 2 is quite clearly lm$yxw, "to his anointed" (singular). What's the problem?


spin

Toto

When someone today refers to George W. Bush as "King George" will later historians try to fit him into the 18th century?

When I read Paul's statement about Aretas and Damascus, I don't see sober testimony to a fact of history. I see a boastful anecdote. Without knowing the full context, we can't know exactly what Paul meant, but it seems a stretch to take it at face value.

But I gather that no one liked my attempt to explain this as metaphor.

spin

I missed the attempt to explain it as metaphor in the fog of war.

Aretas is not a common name, as S.C.Carlson pointed out. The choice, if the use of name is literal and it doesn't seem like a non-literal use to me, is between the kings of Petra by that name, of which one historically had control of Damascus, while the others leave no trace of having done so. Will metaphor deal with Paul's anecdote?


spin

Toto

Paul tells a fantastical story of escaping from Damascus by being let down in a basket through a hole in a wall. Why should we believe that this happened? Why would King Aretas be after Paul - a nobody who didn't rate a mention in any history book, agitating for a new religion that didn't hit the radar?

here's my old post in case you missed the link: Was Paul ever in Damascus?

Clivedurdle

If we are introducing the teacher of righteousness and Qumran, doesn't that make a BCE date and Aretas III more likely? What are the relationships between Aretas III (or IV) and Qumran?

Does the "fool" stuff help? When was that common in Roman theatre?

Clivedurdle

Just browsed Atwill in the local bookshop! He might be onto something!

S.C.Carlson

In Gal 1:17, Paul stated: "nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus."

Those who read the abbreviated account Acts in isolation may get the impression that the basket incident happened the first and only time Paul left Damascus, and it is indeed to hard for many people, including scholars skeptical of Acts, to avoid reading Paul's letters through the lens of Acts (just as it is hard to avoid understanding first century Judean history through the lens of Josephus).

Nevertheless, Paul's version in Galatians indicates that he left Damascus twice, one of them after he went to Arabia, where there is no dispute that Aretas IV was sovereign. Based on what we know of Paul, he annoyed the authorities almost everywhere he preached and there is no reason to think that Arabia would be exceptional. Thus, in Paul's self-description, the best time to locate the basket incident is after he returned to Damascus from Arabia. He presumably annoyed Aretas while in Arabia, fled back to Damascus, and then had to escape from Damascus after Aretas's ethnarch went looking for him there. That Paul would take refuge in Damascus from Aretas and then be forced to flee suggests that Aretas's influence over Damascus was at best transient and another nail in the coffin for the Aretas III identification.

Stephen

spin

Contrary to popular opinion, Arabia in ancient times was the land of the east, including east of Damascus, all the way down to the Arabian peninsula. Josephus, talking of the time of Alexander Jannaeus, says "[h]e also overcame the Arabians, such as the Moabites and Gileadites," AJ 13.13.5.

Or try AJ 13.15.1, "After this, Antiochus, who was called Dionysus, and was Philip's brother, aspired to the dominion, and carne to Damascus, and got the power into his hands, and there he reigned; but as he was making war against the Arabians, his brother Philip heard of it, and came to Damascus, where Milesius, who had been left governor of the citadel, and the Damascens themselves, delivered up the city to him."

Or AJ 16.11.3 "Those [Jews] of Trachonitis also made use of this opportunity, and rose up against the Idumean garrison, and followed the same way of robbing with the Arabians."

The Nabataeans were called Arabs, but were not the only Arabs. When Aretas is called king of the Arabs, it doesn't mean he held sway over all Arabs. He was also called king of "Arabia Petrea" (et al.). When Izates, son of Helena of Adiabene, converted to Judaism, his nobles contacted one Abia "king of the Arabians", abian ton arabwn basilea, AJ 20.4.1.

This image of Paul whizzing off to the Arabian peninsula before entering Damascus doesn't fit the logistics of the situation at all. And when we find that Arabia also included the lands to the east even of Damascus, Paul's Arabian trip makes much more geographical sense. Aretas IV had nothing to do with this part of Arabia.


spin

spin

Further on Arabia:

Tacitus describes Arabia as east of Judea in His. 5.

Herodotus talking of Egypt, "I found the country to bear no resemblance either to its borderland Arabia, or to Libya - nor even to Syria, which forms the seaboard of Arabia"! 2.12.2.

Plutarch gives Crassus, on his way to destruction in Mesopotamia, these words:"Consider you now travel through the confines of Arabia and Assyria." Also in Crassus, Cassius had Arabian guides. Or Plutarch's Pompey, "Pompey having now by his forces under the command of Afranius, subdued the Arabians about the mountain Amanus" -- Amanus is on the northern side of Syria! His Alexander, "he made an excursion against the Arabians who inhabit the Mount Antilibanus." And so it goes.

Forget Arabia implying south or Aretas. It doesn't fit the facts. It is east from the north to the south, but east.


spin