Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 06-02-2009, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What can be and what is are not the same thing.

Undoubtedly. And what is in 2 Cor.11:32 makes no mention of Aretas III...

No more arbitrary than your linking Aretas III with the Aretas mentioned in 2 Cor.11:32.

I have pointed out the relevant historical indications. For Aretas III we have clear evidence for his possession of Damascus. After he was driven out and it was taken over by Rome. The opportunity for some other Aretas disappeared.

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Which would I prefer - I already said the relevant number symbolism is 100 years.....100 years between the siege of Jerusalem by Aretas III and his subsequent defeat by Pompey, in 64/63 BC, and the defeat of the army of Herod Antipas by Aretas IV in 36/37 CE.

This 100 year historical relationship between the two Aretas is something that would not have gone unnoticed by anyone interested in number symbolism. Philo for instance. Particularly as this historical connection between the two kings would have been evident during his own life time. This historical connection was 'out there', so to speak, and available for any NT writer to apply to the backdating of a storyline regarding the apostle Paul.

Quote:

Josephus states something and you impose it on 2 Cor 11:32. There is a difference of perspective there.

spin

Well, I thought historical sources are to be used for investigating what 2 Cor.11:32 was about! Surely, we are not going to reject sources because they might challenge our particular viewpoint?

And Josephus, if historical, would have been able to have contact with people living at the time of the war against Herod Antipas by Aretas IV.
Josephus even saying that the Jews viewed the destruction of the army of Herod Antipas as being from God because of John the Baptist. Aretas IV would have been a popular talking point....

And who knows but that Josephus might even have had his own connection to Philo - and even if not a a one on one connection - he was in a close relationship with Agrippa II - the brother of Bernice who was at one time married to the nephew of Philo...

maryhelena · 06-02-2009, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Undoubtedly. And what is in 2 Cor.11:32 makes no mention of Aretas III...

No more arbitrary than your linking Aretas III with the Aretas mentioned in 2 Cor.11:32.

I have pointed out the relevant historical indications. For Aretas III we have clear evidence for his possession of Damascus. After he was driven out and it was taken over by Rome. The opportunity for some other Aretas disappeared.

What we have is the passage in 2 Cor.11:32 - a NT passage that places the apostle Paul in Damascus at a time when, historically, there was no Aretas ruling over Damascus. The NT chronology for the apostle Paul is historically at odds with secular history regarding Aretas III - and Aretas IV.

Consequently, the option is open for alternative interpretations of this passage - interpretations from a non-historical perspective - either number symbolism, figurative etc.

Quote:

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Which would I prefer - I already said the relevant number symbolism is 100 years.....100 years between the siege of Jerusalem by Aretas III and his subsequent defeat by Pompey, in 64/63 BC, and the defeat of the army of Herod Antipas by Aretas IV in 36/37 CE.

This 100 year historical relationship between the two Aretas is something that would not have gone unnoticed by anyone interested in number symbolism. Philo for instance. Particularly as this historical connection between the two kings would have been evident during his own life time. This historical connection was 'out there', so to speak, and available for any NT writer to apply to the backdating of a storyline regarding the apostle Paul.

Well, I thought historical sources are to be used for investigating what 2 Cor.11:32 was about! Surely, we are not going to reject sources because they might challenge our particular viewpoint?

And Josephus, if historical, would have been able to have contact with people living at the time of the war against Herod Antipas by Aretas IV.
Josephus even saying that the Jews viewed the destruction of the army of Herod Antipas as being from God because of John the Baptist. Aretas IV would have been a popular talking point....

And who knows but that Josephus might even have had his own connection to Philo - and even if not a a one on one connection - he was in a close relationship with Agrippa II - the brother of Bernice who was at one time married to the nephew of Philo...

Solo · 06-02-2009, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

So what you are saying is that Aretas, having attacked the empire, by warring with and defeating one of its clients, simply left alone after Tiberius died, with nothing changing on his status of a non-desirable. To me that seems much less realistic than him prying Damascus from the Roman chicken-shit.

No. He attacked a lackey and caused a stir, but that was no real skin on the Roman collective nose, hence the halfhearted retaliation by Vitellius. It just would have put Aretas in bad. Remember that Aretas was lucky to get away with it because of the change of emperor, an event which usually meant a shakeup internally and danger externally (threat of war was usual in times like that).

You are contradicting yourself. If Rome after Tiberius read the Antipas-Aretas spate as something else than a family feud of no consequence to the empire, Aretas would have been smashed. You know it.

Quote:

So Aretas III put a general over Damascus. Was that necessary in your scenario for Aretas IV?

Thank you, spin ! I brought the strategos title up to show that Paul's reference was not to Aretas III. as you claimed.

Quote:

Perhaps, if you tried to deal with the issue. Maybe I missed it but it seems you are happily telling me of your view of what was going on in the head of Paul in the main section of the boasting passage, then stop and not touch the how the appendage 2 Cor 11:30-33 actually work with the main section. It is after all that part which has the stuff about Aretas.

I tried to show you why Paul boasts of the negatives that befall him. He first gives inventory of his persecutions and then he says he boasts of his 'weakness' (30-31). The Damascus incident is appended as an example of Paul's weakness. 'Quo vadis' type of idea.

But make of it what you will.

Jiri

the_cave · 06-02-2009, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So Aretas III put a general over Damascus. Was that necessary in your scenario for Aretas IV?

The issue here specifically is that since Damascus was a contested area with a citadel, one might expect the Nabateans to install a strategos there (as was their custom for military commands), rather than an ethnarch, if they were in fact in charge of the territory. It's not a given, but it's something to consider.

Quote:

We are still at these "might haves" when there seems to be no reason for them.

Yes, but the problem is your solution isn't much better. If the Aretas in 2 Cor 11:32 could only refer to Aretas III, then you must argue for a Paul active in the 1st c. BCE (which is prima facie unlikely). But you don't even think the passage is authentic in the first place. Which means you need an interpolator after Aretas III but before Aretas IV, making an interpolation for some unknown, inscrutable reason, and all under the assumption that Aretas III actually had an ethnarch governing Damascus in general. In the face of this, the choice between your hypothesis and several others seems arbitrary. Unless this is not your hypothesis, in which case it might help to know exactly when and how you think 2 Cor 11:32 got there.

spin · 06-02-2009, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I have pointed out the relevant historical indications. For Aretas III we have clear evidence for his possession of Damascus. After he was driven out and it was taken over by Rome. The opportunity for some other Aretas disappeared.

What we have is the passage in 2 Cor.11:32 - a NT passage that places the apostle Paul in Damascus at a time when, historically, there was no Aretas ruling over Damascus. The NT chronology for the apostle Paul is historically at odds with secular history regarding Aretas III - and Aretas IV.

Using Paul's letters how do you decide when Paul lived?

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Consequently, the option is open for alternative interpretations of this passage - interpretations from a non-historical perspective - either number symbolism, figurative etc.

Quote:

spin

spin · 06-02-2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

No. He attacked a lackey and caused a stir, but that was no real skin on the Roman collective nose, hence the halfhearted retaliation by Vitellius. It just would have put Aretas in bad. Remember that Aretas was lucky to get away with it because of the change of emperor, an event which usually meant a shakeup internally and danger externally (threat of war was usual in times like that).

You are contradicting yourself.

You seem to have trouble understanding what a contradiction is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

If Rome after Tiberius read the Antipas-Aretas spate as something else than a family feud of no consequence to the empire, Aretas would have been smashed. You know it.

No and you don't either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Thank you, spin ! I brought the strategos title up to show that Paul's reference was not to Aretas III. as you claimed.

If you read Josephus, you'll find him using different terms for similar positions, such as the head Roman official in Judea. All you are doing is clinging to dreams and force-fitting others' use of language to your desires. That's naughty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Perhaps, if you tried to deal with the issue. Maybe I missed it but it seems you are happily telling me of your view of what was going on in the head of Paul in the main section of the boasting passage, then stop and not touch the how the appendage 2 Cor 11:30-33 actually work with the main section. It is after all that part which has the stuff about Aretas.

I tried to show you why Paul boasts of the negatives that befall him. He first gives inventory of his persecutions and then he says he boasts of his 'weakness' (30-31). The Damascus incident is appended as an example of Paul's weakness. 'Quo vadis' type of idea.

How specifically does it show his weakness?

spin

spin · 06-02-2009, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So Aretas III put a general over Damascus. Was that necessary in your scenario for Aretas IV?

The issue here specifically is that since Damascus was a contested area with a citadel, one might expect the Nabateans to install a strategos there (as was their custom for military commands), rather than an ethnarch, if they were in fact in charge of the territory. It's not a given, but it's something to consider.

What about the possibility that the two terms might not be as specific as you'd like them to be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Quote:

We are still at these "might haves" when there seems to be no reason for them.

Yes, but the problem is your solution isn't much better. If the Aretas in 2 Cor 11:32 could only refer to Aretas III, then you must argue for a Paul active in the 1st c. BCE (which is prima facie unlikely). But you don't even think the passage is authentic in the first place.

It is more likely not authentic, but it may be, which would put Paul earlier than we usually consider.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Which means you need an interpolator after Aretas III but before Aretas IV,

I don't see why you give the interpolator such a specific place in time. If they were confused about the reference then they could be any point in time after Paul's writing. I've pointed to Paul's letters written away from the Levant. The hypothetical interpolator would probably also be as well. You can't conclude much about the quality of his knowledge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

making an interpolation for some unknown, inscrutable reason, and all under the assumption that Aretas III actually had an ethnarch governing Damascus in general.

The situation I have explained many times is simple. Aretas III is the only one of that name who had the context to have a ruler in Damascus. Damascus became a Roman possession and was nominally administered from Antioch, which was still the case in 35 CE. A war with Herod Antipas, which took place in Perea, is irrelevant to this situation, except that it would have put Aretas IV in the bad books with Rome. If 2 Cor 11:32 is veracious then it refers to Aretas III, as there was no opportunity for any other. You can concoct various scenarios outside history to give Aretas IV an opportunity, but to what end?

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

In the face of this, the choice between your hypothesis and several others seems arbitrary. Unless this is not your hypothesis, in which case it might help to know exactly when and how you think 2 Cor 11:32 got there.

maryhelena · 06-02-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

What we have is the passage in 2 Cor.11:32 - a NT passage that places the apostle Paul in Damascus at a time when, historically, there was no Aretas ruling over Damascus. The NT chronology for the apostle Paul is historically at odds with secular history regarding Aretas III - and Aretas IV.

Using Paul's letters how do you decide when Paul lived?

Well, he claims to have visited certain apostles in Jerusalem - so it looks like he lived, if he is historical, prior to the destruction of that city in 70 CE.
But I'm sure you already know that.....

I think its up to you, if your wanting to place Paul visiting Damascus prior to 65 BC, when Aretas III ruled there, to provide more NT argumentation than simply a literal interpretation of just one passage i.e. 2 Cor.11:32 - a passage that can be interpreted, because of its ambiguous nature, from a non-historical perspective.

Quote:

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Consequently, the option is open for alternative interpretations of this passage - interpretations from a non-historical perspective - either number symbolism, figurative etc.

spin · 06-02-2009, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Using Paul's letters how do you decide when Paul lived?

Well, he claims to have visited certain apostles in Jerusalem - so it looks like he lived, if he is historical, prior to the destruction of that city in 70 CE.
But I'm sure you already know that.....

But your knowledge of who these apostles were is tainted by post-hoc literature that cannot be trusted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I think its up to you, if your wanting to place Paul visiting Damascus prior to 65 BC, when Aretas III ruled there, to provide more NT argumentation than simply a literal interpretation of just one passage i.e. 2 Cor.11:32 - a passage that can be interpreted, because of its ambiguous nature, from a non-historical perspective.

My problem is two-fold. It is precisely this passage that was produced as a means of dating Paul independently and it fails. Now, if we assume the veracity of the later traditions then the text has misinformation regarding Aretas (IV) and that doesn't seem anything to do with supposed numerical notions. If we don't assume veracity, we are free to contemplate the only functional setting for the event narrated, ie the time when Aretas III held Damascus. This second option though possible seems less likely to me.

spin

andrewcriddle · 06-02-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Bowersock argues in Roman Arabia (or via: amazon.co.uk) on the basis of Strabo and the absence of Aretan coins in 3, 2 and 1 BCE that Nabataea was briefly annexed from say 3 -1 BCE and returned to Aretas as a client kingdom in 1 AD

As I said, Rome influenced beyond its borders. Herod's kingdom was given to him by Rome after it had been taken by Pompey, as was the case with Syria, and various other client kingdoms. How does Strabo support your use of him? And Bowersock's opinion seems not to based on anything other than the shaky start to Aretas IV's reign, which included Syllaeus trying to embroil the Romans in Nabataean affairs. Any real evidence?

spin

I should have given a little more detail about Bowersock's argument. He claims that although published in the reign of Tiberius Strabo's Geography mostly represents the state of events in 3-2 BCE. IE Strabo is evidence that in 3-2 BCE the Nabataeans were regarded as Roman subjects a time which corresponds to the hiatus in coins by Aretas (Coins from 8-4 BCE Coins from 1 AD onwards.)

I'm not sure how the reference to Herod helps your case. I was suggesting that Aretas was in a similar position to Herod the Great, a client king with an unusual amount of autonomy.

In substance I'm not sure how much difference there is between the idea of Aretas as a theoretically sovereign ruler who could not in practice do anything that seriously displeased the Romans and Aretas as a client king with an unusual amount of autonomy. However the statement by Josephus that Aretas was not fully accepted as king by his own people until Augustus ratified his position does suggest that he was ultimately a Roman client.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.