the_cave

So you think the author of 2 Cor 11:32 was not talking about the
ruler of Damascus? Then what is the problem?

Yes, the duty of a "minion" as you put it, working for a sheik.

There is plenty of extra contextualization. There is the entire situation
on the eastern Roman border during the 1st c. CE.

I'm glad you at least think Feldman is neutral--earlier you said "Feldman footnotes the issue saying...that Josephus has probably been altered."

Feldman says that Philo "apparently contradicts Josephus". But then he says Philo's genarch "must be the same as the ethnarch". He refers to Reinach, but then refers to Box. This is the behavior of someone who thinks there isn't a problem--hence my claim that "Feldman...seems to think that Josephus is correct" (emphasis added). Feldman is neutral, but acts like someone who leans towards authenticity. I lean on the claim as much as Feldman does, no more.

Paul could be imagining that the Arab ethnarch in Damascus has minions
stationed in the city, looking for him. But this could simply be a
deluded belief.

It was in the 2005 thread. But we now agree that it only has to be about the ethnarch's minions.

I think the author knew the difference between the Aretas before Augustus,
and the Aretas after Augustus, and that he was refering to the latter,
making Paul a 1st c. CE figure, not a 1st c. BCE figure. That's the value
of 2 Cor 11:32, nothing more.

I'm asking you a very simple question: should we expect an ethnarch in
Damascus to be the ruler of Damascus, especially if he is an Arab
ethnarch, i.e. a sheik? If so, then the case for interpolation is strong.
If not, then it is less strong. But you seem to be unwilling to commit to
an answer.

I'm not saying Paul is lying. I'm saying he could have been self-deluded.

spin

Your last "if" in the context was actually: "But why should anyone believe him, if ethnarchs did not rule Damascus?"

Context in the text we are dealing with. There's no point in trying to bring in the whole universe if someone is talking about the satellite of a planet. Context.

That's what he footnotes.

Feldman gives information. You lean on some of it.

The comment isn't clear. What exactly does "this" refer to? The Arab ethnarch, him in Damascus, him having minions, them looking for Paul?

I'm sorry, you are not making sense here to me. You don't seem to have succeeded in being communicative in this part of the exchange at all.

How do you test your thought?

It seems that the term "sheik", which comes from Liddell and Scott, is giving you trouble. I merely used it to indicate that an ethnarch needn't have been of a large territory. However, I have already answered your question. A natural reading of the text should lead you to suppose that the ethnarch of Aretas had control of the city. Would you like me to say it again? Here you go: A natural reading of the text should lead you to suppose that the ethnarch of Aretas had control of the city.

Reading the text is what you are supposed to be doing. There is nothing in the text to suggest that you should see it any other way, is there?


When you say "make things up" that indicates volition. It doesn't indicate self-delusion.

Forgetting "make things up", Paul could theoretically have been deluded, but is this the sort of thing that one might expect Paul to be deluded about? The indications we have are regarding religious experience. This isn't a case of that.


spin

maryhelena

In view of the dating problems regarding Paul in the NT - the Aretas passage for instance - the argument from silence is at least something that is worthy of consideration. Plus, of course, the implausibility of preaching either a crucified messiah or a Cosmic Christ prior to 70 CE.

Absence of evidence, prior to Eusebius, for the TF, combined with textual examination of the Josephan passage, is considered a relevant factor in deciding for an interpolation.

A problem that indicates the implausibility that both scenarios are untenable prior to 70 CE.
But were not the Christians supposed to turn the other cheek? Follow their leader and be led like a lamb to the slaughter....
The MJ position is untenable prior to 70 CE and the HJ position cannot be supported historically.

maryhelena

Agreed, there is nothing obvious about it - otherwise we would not have arguments over the issue....

The point is, surely, to look for interpretations, viewpoints, etc, that will provide some insight and also some avenues for further investigation. Some ideas might seem illogical to us but to someone else the assumed illogical idea could provide the stepping stone to further investigation.

Lots of false starts in intellectual endeavors - but that is the name of the game....intellectual discoveries are not made in some straight line, step by step, one logical position after another logical position. Even Einstein said, in relationship to his discovery of his General Theory of Relativity, "There is no logical path to such natural laws, only intuition can reach them". Karl Popper wrote that "There is no such thing as a logical method of having new ideas, or a logical reconstruction of this process. Every great discovery contains an irrational element or a creative intuition".

So, for myself, I'd rather see where an idea takes me than reject it out of hand as being illogical, or not an obvious position to take on something.

The grounds are that the storyline is implausible as a historical happening during the time period in which the storyline is set i.e. prior to 70 CE. I view the gospel storyline as being a combination of prophetic and mythological elements - prophetic interpretation indicating both the historical time line and the messianic core.

spin

However one works, one still has to deal with the available evidence. When the evidence is inadequate one cannot make conclusions.

History works somewhat differently from science: with science you get the opportunity to repeat things. History doesn't provide such a luxury. We can then only talk about what the current evidence from the period allows us to.

I don't think there's really a response in there.

Some proponents of a mythological analysis of the origins of christianity have no problems with the basic timeline as the status quo has it from when Paul started preaching his new religion. They don't find it implausible. Why do you?


spin

Amaleq13

Less secure information does not make an argument from silence stronger.

There is nothing inherently implausible about preaching either at any time especially when the evidence indicates acceptance that built over time. You seem to confusing "plausible" with "acceptable to many".

The TF is wholly irrelevant to the question I asked.

No, that is a non sequitur. Nothing you've referenced suggests, let alone establishes, that either position is implausible or untenable.

maryhelena

But is that not the issue - we are not in the gospels dealing with history! The fact that the gospel storyline references certain historical individuals is no evidence that the gospel figures connected to such historical figures are themselves historical. The gospels are dealing with a prophetic interpretation of a specific historical time frame. Jesus of Nazareth is fitted into an interpretation of OT prophecy. A purely historical approach to the gospel storyline is an inadequate method of dealing with a medium that contains prophecy and mythology. The approach needs to be multi-faceted.

I find the approach that considers a pre 70 CE dating for the apostle Paul to be shortsighted - because what it does is stifle investigation into early Christian origins. It is also an approach that is just not necessary for a mythicist position.

The time frame of the gospel storyline is pre-determined by its prophetic interpretations.

The beginning of early Christianity is not determined by such a prophetic time frame. Consequently, there is no necessity for an immediate, 'historical', follow on to the gospel storyline by the apostle Paul. Sure, in an origins story the gospels and the Paul storyline can be combined - but apart from an origins storyline - the possibility of a considerable gap between the backdated, prophetic, gospel story and the early beginnings of Christianity is far more likely. Whatever historical core might lie within the storyline about the apostle Paul, it is a historical core that is more probable after 70 CE than prior to that date.

If one wants to uphold a pre 70 CE date for the ministry of the apostle Paul - what one is actually doing is going along with the gospel' prophetic time line - and not considering the early beginnings of Christianity from a purely historical standpoint.

the_cave

And I am asking you, how do we know that a ruler of Damascus, even under Aretas, would be an ethnarch?

No--if you say "Feldman footnotes the issue saying...that Josephus has probably been altered" then that is a statement (by you) that Feldman says Josephus has probably been altered. But he says no such thing--it's Reinach who says that Josephus has probably been altered. Feldman simply notes that Reinach said this.

As much as Feldman does--for there it is, in the main text, edited by Feldman, as "ethnarch". He offers a caveat, which I accept. Again, no more, no less.

The minions looking for Paul, but it's not an important point.

It's not important, it's just a misunderstanding. We agree that 2 Cor 11:32 speaks of some number of guards with orders to search for Paul.

I said earlier that if it's problematic to say that Paul was a 1st c. CE figure, based on the lateness of Marcion's use of him, then isn't is much more problematic to say he's a 1st c. BCE figure? So already the likelihood is that the author of 2 Cor 11:32 has Aretas IV in mind.

But is there any exterior evidence that should lead us to think that the ruler of Damascus was called an ethnarch? I don't think there is. I read in Schurer that inscriptions show there were ethnarchs in the area, but why would an interpolator think one ruled Damascus? Especially if the interpolator were 2nd c. CE, and the ethnarch would have ruled 200 years earlier? Are you trying to argue that "ethnarch" was a generic title an interpolator should be expected to use?

spin

Strangely enough, we are. In order to understand what texts say we have to contextualize them (and you are trying to do so arbitrarily by declaring that the events they deal with couldn't be before a certain date). Texts themselves are a part of history and without their place in history they are difficult to use. That's why there is such a gulf between texts like Tacitus and Polybius, and those of the christian religion. We have a historical sense of their writing, so we can know that it is possible for the content to be veracious.

...without abandoning the necessities of history.

What about a pre-30 CE dating?

The only thing that is shortsighted to me is adding complexity to one's theories for no good reason. A mythicist doesn't need a mythical Paul, nor that christianity started later.

Hell, I personally don't know that Jesus was not a figure in the real world at one time -- but I don't know he was either. Yet, I know that no-one has demonstrated evidence to push the issue either way.

This is still a bald assertion. You have nothing to back such claims up.

Oh, crap. Stop blathering. You cannot make empty claims of probability like this. Probability isn't based on personal desire.

If you say so....


spin

spin

We are working with the text. Does it allow you to think that the ethnarch of Aretas was anything other than the normal notion of what an ethnarch was, ie someone in charge of someplace? Obviously not. The only limit the text sets on the ethnarch is that he is both of Aretas and of Damascus. The implication is obvious and no matter how much foreign material you try to dragoon into the issue, you will have to deal with the plain implications first. What do the terms usually denote? And how is that usual denotation augmented?

The difference between "Feldman footnotes..." and "Feldman says..." is notable. Stop being boring.

Rubbish. Feldman covers the angles including all the relevant information and palys it safe that way.

That is you helping the writer out. It has nothing to do with the writer at all.

The text doesn't care. You have to deal with it.

Assuming for a moment that the Pauline text was indeed interpolated, where do you think it happened? If it happened outside the context of someone knowledgeable about the history of Damascus, ie a very small section of the Levantine learned establishment, one's knowledge of history and politics was exceptionally sketchy. And you ask "why would an interpolator think one ruled Damascus?" Local rulers under Roman control were usually ethnarchs, weren't they?

What else do you propose that our hypothetical interpolator use?


spin