spin

The TR was only introduced in relation to S.C.Carlson's implied claim that there couldn't have been a crucified messiah in the early 1st c. BCE.

There may have been some vague connection between Qumran and Arabia, but there are very few artifacts, none datable, that point in that direction, enough to be expected in normal day-to-day life in a Jewish settlement.


spin

spin

Once we shore Paul's basket case away from a known historical context, ie that of Aretas III in control of Damascus, we then enter a realm of the unknown, where there are only theories. If one takes Paul's statement to be wrong one might come down on your side. If one takes the statement as reflecting reality, then one might come down on S.C.Carlson's side of the analysis. There are other possibilities. Given this state of the game, I can't see us being successfully able to use 2 Cor 11 as a historical marker.


spin

Toto

But this is known primarily from Acts, which has Paul getting into scrapes everywhere and being saved either by divine providence or by his own oratorical skills. That's a plot device to keep the reader on the edge of his or her seat. (Perils of Paul?)

From Paul's own letters, he supported civil authority. The only real support in Paul's writings for thinking that Paul got into a lot of trouble is the "Foolish" discourse in 2 Corinthians, which has all the hallmarks of a dramatic presentation. Why should this be taken at face value? Does it have any indicia of reliability? This especially when we know that Aretas did not have a governor in Damascus - a hint that at least something there is to be taken as a metaphor.

Chris Weimer

I thought otherwise. Do you browse through the discussion?

spin

I looked at a photo of the fragment.


spin

Chris Weimer

Er, read through it again. I'm sorry to defer to elsewhere on this, as my knowledge of Hebrew is defunct. What was it Dierk had argued for then, and why did he say it was plural? I believe it had something to do with ambiguity? Please further.

spin

Lines 1 & 2 are in parallel, both dealing with the heavens and the earth, yet giving slightly different information. L1 they will listen to his anointed one (no doubt in the reading). L2 they will adhere to the utterances of his holy ones. There is an obvious relationship between his anointed one and his holy ones, the single as the focus, the group as the weight -- a bit like the president vs the cabinet.


spin

S.C.Carlson

Most commentators understand Arabia in Gal 1:17 to include, among other things, the Nabatean kingdom south of Damascus (a usage suuported by Diod. S. 19, 94,1 χώÏ?α τῶν ἈÏ?άβων τῶν καλουμένων Î?αβαταίων and the other refs. cited in BDAG).

"Whizzing off to the Arabian penisula" also does not fit most people's understanding of Arabia in Gal 1:17, so let's put this strawman out to pasture.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Huh? The Nabatean kingdom of Aretas IV was east of Judea.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

"Implied claim" is an admission that I didn't actually make such a claim. I was arguing from relative probabilities, not absolute.

Stephen