S.C.Carlson

It is also known from 2 Cor 11:23-28; 2 Cor 1:8-9; Gal 6:17; 1 Thess 2:2, 3:4; Phil 1:7, 12-14; Phlm 1, 10, 13, 23; etc.

We have the methodological issue of when it is appropriate to ignore primary sources, but, putting that aside, using Paul's statement about Aretas to anchor Paul's chronology only requires that it was plausible to Paul's audience. If Paul was exaggerating about his experience with a contemporary figure, then Paul's reference contemporary figure can still be used to date his writing.

For example, if I claimed (falsely) that I shook Boris Yeltsin's hand fifteen years ago, the mere fact that I referred to Boris Yeltsin can be used to narrow the range of dates when I could have claimed this--regardless of whether or not I actually shook Yeltsin's hand.

Let's slow down here. We don't actually "know" that Aretas did not have a governor in Damascus (if that's what 2 Cor 11:32 even means). Or, at least, I don't know this to be a fact. How do you know this to be true?

Stephen

spin

Sorry, I don't understand why your arguing. I've already given enough evidence to show the range of significance of the terminology.

Except for the problem between Aretas IV and Herod Antipas, the Nabataean kingdom was decidedly south - south of Peraea. You have to get south past the Dead Sea to get to Petra. During the problem period there is some doubt over Machaerus. There is not another indication on the subject.

In fact, Josephus clearly indicates against the line you are advocating: Vitellius, when charged with bringing Aretas back dead or alive, sets off not for Damascus, but for Petra. Vitellius goes to march through Judea to go to Petra. Damascus isn't a trajectory or a consideration. Aretas IV's involvement in Damascus is all a fabrication to justify 2 Cor 11.

Diodorus is probably right as far as his source goes for whenever his source wrote, but it doesn't change an iota. The Nabataeans were not all the Arabs. They were just the Arabs in the vicinity of Petra.

Fine.


spin

spin

Petra is decidedly south of east. Machaerus is south-east of Jerusalem. Petra is decidedly further south.


spin

Ted Hoffman

Acts 18:12
In PAUL, Gunther Bornkamm dates this event between CE 51 and 52 based on an inscription found in Delphi that mentions govenor Junius Gallio, a brother of Seneca's.

How about that?

Peter Kirby

A fact in Acts might as well be a cracker jack prize for all its use. Nobody, or at least nobody here but the silent or outspoken, would believe it.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Come on Peter. We aren't that bad. Your distilled sarcasm is appreciated though .
I recommend "icecream for freaks" instead of "cracker jack prize". I think it captures the idea much more colourfully.

Toto

Pretty vague. It's not clear how the authorities were involved here, or the source of the hardship.

The famous "stigmata" passage. What does it mean?

Again, was this official persecution? The normal problems of preaching a new religion?
He's in prison, but we don't know how he got there, as with Philemon.

But that's what we don't know - how did Paul's audience react to this? Was that in fact a contemporary figure? Was it a metaphorical reference to a well known story about someone who escaped from Aretas III?

For example. Clarence Thomas complained that he was subject to a "high tech lynching." Everyone knew exactly what he meant, and no one took it literally.

Google "King George" and note the number of times that phrase refers ironically to George Bush.

We don't know much. But I thought it was an agreed fact that Aretas IV did not control Damascus. (I have not been able to read the article you referenced above.) The idea that there was an "ethnarch" in Damascus with some governing authority over a segment of the population is a speculation intended to save the historicity of the passage.

There is the contention that the reference to Aretas and Damascus here is a later interpolation by someone who was vague on history. (Sid Green, A Suspected Interpolation in 2 Corinthians. Some of this article is outdated, but its observations on language seem pertinent.) It's a much simpler solution that the contortions that are required to fix this in history.

After all, does that story even make sense? What was Aretas' motive in going after Paul?

Clivedurdle

That rings a bell with Paul!

Toto

The Paul - Seneca connection is indelibly connected with forged documents. Later Christians thought that they ought to have met and talked about common interests.

spin

Hang on a minute. What's this about forged documents? Working form relative probabilities, there's a good chance that Paul corresponded with Seneca. After all we have the letters as primary evidence. There's no problem here. Paul, when he went to Rome, could easily have been introduced to Seneca by one of the freed men in the house of Caesar. So, not only do we have the letters, but we have the opportunity as well.


spni