spin

Yes, it's hardly a common name. This in itself is irrelevant to why one should contemplate Aretas IV with respect to Paul.

I don't follow your logic.

Mine involves a web of data which fits Paul into a rough historical time reference because he is supposed to have had contacts with certain people as per Acts and Acts is dated with corroboration through the gospels. Aretas in Damascus is known historically in another context, ie Aretas III and his presence there where the Romans arrived, before and after the time of the Armenian Tigranes. However, as the time period attributed to Paul is very different from that of Aretas III, one starts looking for other explanations, because, a priori, it cannot be Aretas III.

Hence I don't know what you're on about, despite the fact that scholars have looked at the Josephus passage about the strife between Aretas IV and Herod Antipas for a long time. One wouldn't contemplate inventing Aretas IV in Damascus if it hadn't been for an a priori dating of the Paul episode.

I probably hadn't understood your original point when I read that, so I'm sorry for the confusion.

I'm more interested in understanding the data than taking an apologetic stance.

If you are not dating Paul a priori, what is your primary source? The thread is about looking for a way to date Paul, not assuming a date and working from there. There is no reason to contemplate Josephus's description of a war involving one Aretas in light of an Aretas over 100 years earlier -- except because of a priori commitments.


spin

andrewcriddle

Our earliest evidence for Kaisaros 'of Caesar' comes IIUC in papyri from the reign of Augustus.

Andrew Criddle

spin

What's that?

Rome had the muscle and made demonstration of using it. Had Petra attacked Damascus, they would have been seen as aggressing against Rome. All known examples of this were strictly and ruthlessly dealt with.

On this issue I couldn't say. Would you like to make a learned declaration on it?

Was this the bushdaddy or the bushshrub? I mean was it a covert operation by the elder bush or plain blunder under the younger bush?

(Daddybush is here given as parallel to Aretas IV in the hagiographical analysis.)

Was Osama bin OverLaden really vying for parliament or was he just playing to American suckerdom with the trappings of democracy? I can only go by your packaging of the information. :Cheeky:


spin

S.C.Carlson

Aretas IV is one of two candidates for the person referred in 2 Cor 11:32. Of course, it is relevant to whether he should be considered.

The problem with the Aretas III identification is not with Aretas III but with the fact that the early first century BCE is extremely difficult to account for many other features of Paul's letters. How large was the Jewish population in Rome in the early first century BCE? How significant was Caesar's household in the early first century BCE? What about the reference to the Praetorian Guard (Phil. 1:13)? How about Paul's preaching of a crucified Messiah? All these details make a lot more sense in the first century CE, not BCE. Granted, they hardly tells when in the first century CE Paul would have lived but they do make it difficult for an early first century BCE dating.

If Aretas III is not a viable candidate for all the other reasons, then scholars can hardly be faulted for looking at Aretas IV as the only viable candidate left standing.

Paul's (authentic) letters are the primary source, of course. The general geopolitical situation presupposed these letters (coordinated with what we know of Roman history) places them sometime in the Roman Empire, not the Republic. Then you look at the specific reference to Aretas, coordinate that with Josephus, and we can place Paul's career sometime in the 50s. Anything more specific for Paul requires dealing with Acts.

Stephen

spin

How did you decide Aretas IV was a candidate? What you write below does nothing to clarify your position in the matter.

You are treating Paul's reference as though it was necessarily veracious. That is one of the things that needs to be discerned. Given the fact that we only have one historical context available to us and a highly unlikely scenario as the alternative (admitted by the first two of Campbell's scenarios), we can't assume anything about it.

Size of the Jewish population? How many do you need?

Phil. 1:13 doesn't mention the Praetorian Guard, but the praitwrion. Cicero, for example, was not dismayed to use the Latin term in the middle of the 1st c. BCE. It comes from the name of the general's tent (and generals had their praetoria cohors). When did it make it into Greek? Besides, Philippians is a partly suspect book, made up of letters by Paul and other material. The mention of the house of Caesar comment I have said elsewhere is highly suspect to me.

Crucified messiah? How the hell does that give you any measure of dating? People were being crucified in Judea from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Based on your attempts above to supply meaningful markers that you consider are from the 1st c. CE and on your assumption that the reference itself is veracious (ie reflecting a real event).

Given your presuppositions, it all seems reasonable. I don't hold your presuppositions.

And what makes you believe Acts is useful? You don't know when it was written, so you can't place its information in a historical context.


spin

Peter Kirby

I did a search of the TLG, and the Greek word shows up in (ignoring Christian texts other than the NT):

Heron [floruit mid 1st cent.], Stereometrica and Liber geeponicus
Phlegon [floruit 140s CE according to R.C. Carrier]
Claudius Ptolemaeus [second century]
Dio Cassius [second/third century]
Herodianus [third century]
Eunapius [fourth century]
Eutropius [fourth century]
Decimus Magnus Ausonius [fourth century]
Priscus [fifth century]
New Testament: Matthew, Mark, John, Acts, and Philippians

This suggests the word entered Greek by the time of Heron in the mid first century CE, yet conceivably before then.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

S.C.Carlson

It's the same reason why Aretas III is also a candidate--he has the right name, a fairly uncommon name to boot, in the right broad historical period. Does this really need any more clarification? It's not like I'm trying to identify the referent of 2 Cor 11:32 with L. Calpurnius Piso or something.

It is always appropriate to question a primary source. The problem is that you only have later, vague secondary evidence to impeach it. That's not good enough.

Whatever size the epistle to the Romans implies.

Is the meaning of a "general's tent" for Phil 1:13 a serious proposal?

Were Messiah claimants getting crucified in the early first century BCE? That question is more relevant to the Aretas III identification, not something that happened in the mid-second century BCE.

Evidently.

You're reading an awful lot into my statement that any more specificity requires dealing with Acts. It is a recognition of the limitations of the information in Paul's letters for a precise chronology. However, the information in Paul's letters is good enough to establish that he flourished in the 50s CE.

Stephen

spin

Some criterion.

What's not food enough is starting with a cock-eyed approach to data. Aretas III had control of Damascus (twice). You have to invent an occasion for Aretas IV because there's no evidence for him in the affair. Once you've done that, then you have a candidate. This is not serious.

Although I find it likely that Romans is aimed at people with Jewish knowledge, it doesn't mean that one needs scads, does it?? This is of no use for what you want it to be. There would have been Jews in Rome from the time the Romans went to the east. The Seleucids had Jewish mercenaries. Rome defeated Antiochus III at Magnesia before 190 BCE. Etc.

I give the origin of the term, so you assume that's the significance I argue. Well, done.

And still, there are parts of Philippians that are questioned as not being Pauline. The letter is at least two letters as 3:1b overtly indicates, so, as it now is, it doesn't reflect a work that Paul wrote, but the endeavors of a later redactor.

Where are crucified messiah claims at the time of Aretas IV? Be serious in your response and don't assume your conclusions on literary remains which cannot be shown to be relevant to the era.

If I remember correctly, Michael Wise argues for a messianic figure to fit Qumran's teacher of righteousness. This figure suffered some unclear end in the source material. So you take recourse in silence.

Believe what you like.


spin

S.C.Carlson

Actually, the reason I asked if it was a serious proposal was precisely to avoid making such an assumption.

Your answer makes it perfectly clear both the seriousness of the proposal and the (f)utility of continuing this discussion.

Stephen

spin

Perhaps you might consider the possibility of your questions appearing as rhetorical. After all I referred to the general's tent to supply background, which I thought should have been obvious in the context.

Yes, I can see that there is little value in continuing this discussion with you.


spin