Toto

This is the worst sort of apologetic harmonization.

2 Corinthians is not a specific reference to Aretas IV - it is a reference to some Aretas somewhere, sometime. The author of Acts changed Paul's letter to blame the Jews instead of King Aretas, so the harmonizers have to assume that the Jews worked in concert with the Arabs governed by someone taking orders from Aretas - although there is no motivation for either Jews or Arabs to go after Paul, so "the circumstances remain obscure."

There is no good reason to take this as historical.

The possibilities so far:

1. Areatas IV had some control over Damascus that has escaped the notice of all historians and can't be easily fit into what we know of the history of that time.

2. The passage in 2 Cor was written in the second century, and the writer referred to Aretas because he was a well known king, but got the details wrong about which Aretas controlled Damascus and when (or didn't care about historical accuracy).

3. Paul wrote that passage in the middle of the first century, and used Damascus and Aretas as metaphors for some other place and authority figure.

4. The passage refers to King Aretas III, and "Paul" was relating some event that happened to someone else.

Which of these would you consider the most probable? Which requires the most intricate mental gymnastics?

andrewcriddle

I think you maybe underestimating quite how incomplete our knowlege of the detailed history of client kingdoms in the Roman Empire is.

There is IMO nothing prima-facie implausible in a local king achieving for a few years some control over a city on the borders of his kingdom and the only surviving evidence being a brief mention in a near-contemporary letter.

Andrew Criddle

spin

If Philip had control over Batanaea and Gaulanitis and therefore Gamala, what ever would make you think that Aretas had any borders that abutted the territory of Damascus? One could then ask the same question when the territory of Philip passed to Roman hands. I don't understand why you want Aretas IV there given the primary sources.


spin

the_cave

I don't deny that--the question is, what is its exact status with Rome after the early 30's?

You asked "Why would you ever contemplate Aretas IV, given the historical evidence?" And the reason I would ever contemplate Aretas IV, given the historical evidence, is that Aretas IV is the Aretas who lived closest to the earliest manuscript evidence we have of this passage.

I said specifically "All by itself, the simplest explanation is, it's about Aretas III." I further clarified that what I meant by "all by itself" was "'considered independently of the rest of the text'". Since I made that statement, I have not made reference to any of the rest of Paul in my arguments.

We might not have evidence that Aretas was directly aggressing on Roman territory. But in that case, all we have are plausible possibilities. Another possibility is that he was making a claim on an area, but was not aggressing on it. So, I accept your hypothesis (he was serving as an advocate) as a plausible possibility.

I guess I can see that, if it's simply impossible that Aretas occupied any Roman territory.

Yes, and...this still isn't direct evidence that the boundary dispute was due to Aretas' advocacy for Arabs living in the area. But I agree it's a plausible hypothesis.

You made the claim that "Herod apparently encroached on Arab territory." I merely asked how this could be, if you were also claiming that Aretas could not have been encroaching on the same territory--because, that territory seems to have been entirely Syrian at the time.

I don't see why this is so unlikely.

Some thoughts I have: for one thing, they weren't sent by Philip, because Philip was dead--Josephus is just using "Philip's tetrarchy" to refer to the area (as he does elsewhere). I'm not sure how they were "fugitives"--fugitives from the tetrarchy (prior to their betrayal), or fugitives from Herod (after their betrayal)? Also, now that Philip was dead, what were they doing with Herod anyway? This leads me to suspect they were somehow involved with the disagreement, though I can't tell if this means the battle was fought in the area, or down near Petra.

I'm sorry, I thought this was common knowledge, but I can withdraw the claim until I do more research.

I was only responding to your statement that "mere hypothetical "allegiance" to Aretas wouldn't give him a political officer who could control -- as a garrison would -- the gates of Damascus." I merely pointed out that Damascus must have had some sort of security force, and someone must have been in charge of it--and that someone could have been an ally of Aretas. I agree that the only evidence we have outside of 2 Corinthians for an Aretas in charge of Damascus is for Aretas III.

It does seem unlikely, but then they abadoned Germany after Arminius, didn't they?

Well, maybe. The Gamala business still seems suspicious to me, but oh well.

I figure if Aretas is getting involved with Gamala, he must have already been involved with the eastern Decapolis (which is never explicitly given to Syria, it seems.) Which doesn't put him in Damascus, but gets him closer.

I agree, no one could have been "romping up to Damascus". But if the passage is at all accurate (a big if, I realize) it seems like it was a purely local affair--the person in charge of Damascus was after Paul (for some obscure reason.)

If Aretas was the one encroaching on Gamala, and Gamala was under the control of Syria, it seems strange that it would take Herod's defeat to get Rome involved--so if Aretas was encroaching on Gamala (a hypothetical) and Rome was unconcerned, this has implications.

Ah, I was thrown off by the fact that the "peri te horwn" are plural. I guess I can see that it might just be about the borders in and around Gamala--not necessarily theirs.

Well, it does seem like a plausible explanation, so I'll leave it at that for now.

It would just get him a bit closer to Damascus, and it might also help explain how he could have gotten control of Damascus. But I'll withdraw the argument for now. (Though I think it's strange that Damascus stopped making coins in the early 30's...)

the_cave

He might have had posession of cities like Raphana and Dion, or Kanatha (their status is otherwise unattested, I think) but as I said, I'm withdrawing my argument for now.

andrewcriddle

Leaving aside for the moment Aretas, I've been trying to investigate how far the vocabulary of Paul's epistles is evidence for their date.

My preliminary impressions are

i/ That the acknowledged Pauline letters seem to be earlier in terms of vocabulary than a number of other NT books (the Pastorals on the other hand seem to be among the later NT books) and the acknowledged Pauline writings are probably if anything earlier than Plutarch.

ie Paul seems unlikely to be much after the end of the first century CE.

(Properly Justifying this would take a much more detailed study than I've done yet and this should be regarded as work in progress)

ii/ There is only limited evidence from vocabulary against a very early date of Paul.

One of the strongest single pieces of evidence is the use of the verb ALLHGOREW (to speak allegorically) in Galatians 4:24.

Although the noun ALLHGORIA and its adjectival and adverbial forms are found from well before the middle of the 1st century BCE the verb sems later (Philo Josephus and Plutarch are among the earliest surviving writers apart from Paul to use the verb, with Philo the earliest.) The development of this technical vocabulary for reinterpreting sacred texts (Pagan or Jewish) seems to be part of the rise of Middle Platonism and is unlikely to date from before the last quarter of the 1st century BCE.

Paul's casual and passing use of this vocabulary, seems to indicate that this vocabulary has become widely accepted; ie a date at least somewhat after 25 BCE would seem to be preferable.

Hence a mid 1st century BCE date for Paul's writings seems unlikely on vocabulary grounds.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Philip's territories

On the death of Philip his territories passed under the direct control of Tiberius see Josephus Antiquities Book 18 chapter 4. Herod Agrippa received Philip's territories from Caligula Book 18 chapter 6.

Damascus and Nabatean kingdom

There is a major trading route going up from Petra to Bostra (Busra and other spellings) the major Northern Nabatean city and then to Damascus. Achieving control of Damascus would be a major boost for Nabatean trade.

I didn't mean that Damascus is on the borders of Aretas' kingdom in the sense that its control was necessary for his military security, I meant that extending control Northward to Damascus should have been an important Nabatean objective for economic reasons. If the Romans wished to show favour to Aretas granting control of Damascus was the most obvious thing for them to do.

Andrew Criddle

Pilate

This is interesting. Can you explain in what way is this word (“αλληγοÏ?οÏ?μεναâ€?) important? Dating the letter of Paul?


Did you mean to write "mid 1st century CE"?
The vocabulary of Paul is of interest to me because I have been tracking the words (and phrases) that Paul borrowed from Philo, and "αλληγοÏ?οÏ?μενα" is one of them. Do you by any chance have a list of words that Paul borrowed from Philo? Is there any software available to do such search? Do you or anyone reading this know?
Pilate

spin

No. Part of the discussion hinged around the reference in 2 Cor 11:32-3 which talked of the city of Damascus being under the control of Aretas, who history seems to indicate as Aretas III who had possess of the city before 65 BCE. Andrew was attempting to rule it out.


spin

andrewcriddle

(I'm treating the Pastorals as non-Pauline here)

Other words in Paul plausibly from Philo include

APhThARSIA incorruption
ThEIOTHS divine nature
hIEROURGEW to perform priestly service
KATOPTRIZOMAI to behold oneself in a mirror
PROEUAGGELIZOMAI to proclaim good news beforehand
PROPhHTIKOS prophetic
SUGKLHRONOMOS fellow-heir
ChARISMA gift of (divine) grace

(NOTE: I said plausible here not necessarily probable)

Andrew Criddle