Amaleq13

As has already been pointed out, this is not "according to Paul's text" but something one must read into it. It is possible that Paul meant that the appearances took place immediately after the "three days" but it is not explicitly stated.

As I noted in my first response, this is a fundamental assumption necessary to your argument but there doesn't appear to be any good reason to accept it.

Our willingness to make assumptions is irrelevant unless those assumptions are supported by the text. As far as I can see, the passage in Josephus is far too questionable to support the assumption.

Ted Hoffman

I do not believe what I am witnessing on this thread. Is it the case that what we have always taken for granted can be overturned? :worried:

spin

Wot don't you believe there, Ted?


spin

Clivedurdle

I can't check this, but Gaius Julius Caesar was born 13 July 100 BCE so isn't the name Caesar earlier than 27 BCE?

Ted Hoffman

What I am seeing spin. I just thought there was an incontrovertible way of dating Pauline epistles.
Anyways:Is the argument entailing the assumption that Aretas IV only did wise things?

Does it also entail the assumption that the relationship btwn the Romans and Nabateans was skirmish-free and there were no territorial disputes?

More importantly, does it also entail that what Paul wrote was based on facts only?

Maybe he wanted sympathy - like Mr. Abdul OsamaMohammed, an Iraqi, who is vying for Iraqi Parliamentary Post, can say President Bush sent US troops to shell his business because Bush falsely suspected him to have Al Qaeda links.

The most important thing for historians attempting to determine when Mr. Abdul lived, 170 years from today would not be whether Bush could bother with an obscure upstart like Abdul above. What would be relevant, IMO, would be that Mr. Abdul lived during the presidency of Bush.

Right?

Diogenes the Cynic

The Western Wall was not part of the Temple complex but was simply a retaining wall around the Temple Mount. The plateau of the Temple Mount was completely razed. The "prophecy" was accurate.

Diogenes the Cynic

The name existed but the argument is that the specific phrase, "household of Caesar" would have not have been used to refer to anyone who wasn't an Emperor.

S.C.Carlson

Scholars have been looking at that part of Josephus because it mentions an Aretas, hardly a common name. The choice is really between Aretas III and IV, and there are lots of problems (practically insurmountable IMHO) with the early 1st cen BCE Aretas III.

If there were several kings named Aretas, you might have a point. However, we've got one candidate in c. 75 BCE and another in c. 40 CE. One does not have to be biased toward the Acts contextualization to recognize that the latter is more tenable than the former.

There is substantial agreement among scholars that Josephus's AJ was written in 93/4 CE. Are you disputing this? If not, AJ is certainly more than half a century after either Aretas III and IV.

"Not trouble free" is an understatement. If you're not supporting the Aretas III identification, then there's not much left for us to discuss.

This is one, but not the only, interpretation of a secondary source written almost sixty years after Aretas IV, and it begs the question not only whether this interpretation is correct but also whether it should be privileged over a primary source contrary to proper historical critical method.

Stephen

krosero

This gets to the heart of the issue. We don't know what Paul meant exactly because he was a mystical writer and often unclear. If someone proposes that the list of appearances in Corinthians points to mythicism, I'd be happy to concede that the list is a kind of "mythical marker", if you'll let me make up that term just for the sake or argument, to counterpoint the term "historical marker." Many objections in this thread have pointed out as well that we don't know what Paul meant -- his text means something, but we can't know precisely. In fact we're not 100% sure what he meant to say about Aretas. In what sense Aretas had control over Damacus, per Paul, we can't say exactly. And since it seems the surface meaning cannot be correct, it's quite possible Paul meant something else, unclear to us; yet we call it a historical marker, because it mentions a figure attested in other historical evidence. Judging its veracity is another question.

And if someone wanted to call the Aretas reference a mythical marker, on account of its impossible nature, I'd say they're perfectly welcome.

There is much less agreement on what Paul meant to say about Christ, James, "on the third day," "brother of the Lord," and all the rest, because the claims are so much more numerous and complex. Many interpretations exist; anything I've said that sounds like it denies this is a misunderstanding. I heard in this thread that I would not find anything in Paul indicating a recently deceased figure -- unlike the issue of Jesus' corporeality in general, where theists have heard only that there are indications in Paul of a man who was buried and had a sibling and so forth but that these indications are false, or misread. I think it worth repeating that it's inaccurate to say that there are no indications in Paul of a recently deceased figure. There is one, and it's not taken out of thin air: the interpretation is very old; and it's based on one meaning of "adelphos" that no one denies to be expressed by that word. I've never seen my use of James mentioned before, probably because Christian tradition has simply read a chronology into Paul by using the rest of the NT, rather than using the James passage in Corinthians as a "proof text" that Paul had in mind a recently deceased figure. Proof texts can certainly be challenged, and should be. But the indication of a recently deceased figure exists. If someone wishes to interpret this same passage and even call it a mark of mythicism, I would not deny that someone can make that interpretation and back it up with arguments (quite apart from what I think of the quality of the arguments).

In any case, no one disagrees that "adelphos" can mean biological brother. It also has other meanings, which brings in the uncertainty: barring a chance to get into Paul's head, we probably will never know exactly what he meant. But one plain interpretation of the word does leave us considering that Paul has offered something in Corinthians which implies a chronology and a recently deceased figure. Saying that no indications exist, that none can be found, or that none are possible (if such is the claim), is plainly wrong.

One last example: I would regard the mention of the 500 brothers in the same fashion: it's a historical marker in the sense that the words can point to Christ having 500 siblings. The only thing is, we can all agree that Paul did not have that meaning in mind here; it's just preposterous. But what about James? That is a bone of contention, and I doubt we will ever have the kind of agreement that we have for what Paul meant concerning Aretas, still less what we have for the 500 brothers.

Amaleq13

I'm not sure if anyone has actually made that claim but it seems to me that, assuming a minimum of background knowledge for any alleged claimant, that "clear" or "unequivocal" is assumed. IOW, it is entirely accurate to say that there are no clear indications of a recently deceased figure.

If we assume a literal meaning was intended despite the use of "Lord" (a title associated with the risen Christ) instead of "Jesus" (the name of the man who would be the brother), yes. I don't consider that a warranted assumption at all.

True but it is certainly questionable whether that is the intended meaning when it is applied to a title associated with the non-biological risen Christ rather than the name of the alleged biological brother.

I've said it before but, assuming Paul knew James to have been the brother of the living Jesus, it seems more than a little odd to suggest that he would consider that relationship to continue after the resurrection. IOW, he would reject any notion that the fleshly relationship continued to apply to the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

I don't think there is anything "plain" about interpreting this reference literally.