Toto

The general mythicist storyline (or at least Doherty's) is that the Jesus figure is mythic, and Acts is fictional, but Paul (or someone who wrote the letters attributed to him) was historic. This is because someone had to spread the new religion, and Paul is a likely candidate, and Paul's view of Jesus in his letters is very close to the mythicist version (especially if a few interpolations are excised.)

Paul's reference to Aretas is not part of any story line - it is a casual reference that Christians have tried to pin down as historic. I see no reason to read it literally, or as referencing a real event.

Minimalist

Isn't that just another example of the: "It's LITERALLY TRUE except when it doesn't make any sense and then we'll explain it to you" school of thought?

If "Damascus" doesn't mean "Damascus" why should anyone accept that "Corinth" means "Corinth?"

the_cave

Please re-read what I said, and what Andrew wrote. Andrew is not suggesting that anyone gave Damascus to Aretas. He is suggesting how it could have been possible for Aretas to temporarily take control over Damascus (leaving aside entirely the rather reasonable objection by spin that this would have incurred the wrath of the Romans).

But then, I myself don't think any such control is even necessary for explaining the passage, even assuming Pauline authorship, as you'll see in my reply to spin shortly.

maryhelena

Quite, I'm not taking the Aretas/Damascus and Paul reference as in any way literal. A symbolic interpretation has much more 'meat' to it than a literal connection!

How Christianity go off the ground, so to speak, is a big question. I don't have the answers. However, I do think it highly unlikely that it got off the ground prior to 70 CE - which would put the NT Paul out of the picture. Was Paul based upon some later figure who was backdated to fit into the NT time frame - maybe. The NT is, to my mind, basically a backdated origins story.

the_cave

If the passage refers to a Nabatean governor of Damascus under Aretas IV, I think we agree that the text cannot be taken seriously. Whether you think that's all you need to go home and have a rest is up to you

I am suggesting that the location of the ethnarch is not relevant; it's his guards who are in Damascus, not the ethnarch. Paul was in Damascus (maybe) and claimed that one of Aretas' ethnarchs had guards posted at the gates of the city who were on the lookout for Paul. (BTW I was confused by an earlier discussion I was reviewing and previously refered to him as a polemarch; my error)

But this is implausible on the face of it; my point is that we have no reason to take Paul seriously here, so why couldn't Paul be the author? He's just making a paranoid and self-aggrandizing exaggeration. Some Nabatean potentate was after him for some reason, and Paul just wanted to avoid being seen leaving the city. He's portraying the situation inaccurately.


Furthermore, the online Jewish Encyclopedia notes that this ethnarch might not have been the governor of the city at all, but rather just the leader of one of the ethnic groups there, like the Jewish ethnarch of Alexandria:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=502&letter=E

So even in that case, if the Arab ethnarch himself is "in Damascus", Pauline authorship is still possible. Is there any evidence that Damascus was governed by an ethnarch? If not, why assume that "Aretas' ethnarch in Damascus" is supposed to refer to any Nabatean political control over Damascus at all?

So Paul said he was guarding the city--so what? That could mean anything, including "Paul made it up."

andrewcriddle

Hi Spin

Justin and Tertullian seem to be making a claim about the extent of the province of Roman Arabia.

You could obviously argue that the 2nd century situation is irrelevant to the time of Paul but whatever its relevance the claim seems interesting and puzzling.

Is this a claim about the extent of Roman Arabia ? and if so does it make sense ? or am I misunderstanding what is being claimed ?

(I don't think it at all likely that Justin's statement is in any way based on Corinthians.)

Andrew Criddle

maryhelena

Indeed! That is the trouble - not only with the NT but with the OT also....its all so very subjective and hence arbitrary. The best one can do is try for the interpretation that has the most explanatory power...

Minimalist

Agreed...except then you run the risk of writing the Epistle of Maryhelena instead of the Epistle of "Paul."

BTW, the status of Corinth in the mid first century is equally questionable. Re-founded by Julius Caesar in 44BC as a Roman colony one wonders how many "Jews" might have been living there a mere century later. In fact, a mid second century Greek writer, Pausanias, noted all sorts of shrines and temples in Corinth a century AFTER the alleged Paul and failed to note any sort of "Jewish" or "Christian" communities.

Odd, eh?

spin

It's just that it can't seriously be taken any other way.

You're not reading the text accurately. Notice that Damascus is mentioned twice (once as the city of the Damascenes). This ethnarch is connected with Damascus and his action was to guard (frourew, a verb usually taken to mean "to defend") the city. Attempts to detach Aretas's ethnarch from the city are not based on what the text says.



Relevance?

(When you can quote me what Strabo actually wrote, as cited by JE then we can see exactly what it means and I have tried to find Bk 14 at Perseus and Lacus Curtius, but the relevant chapter ain't. I fear that you'll find that an ethnarch in Alexandria means that he is in control of something in Alexandria and that an ethnarch of the Jews connects him to the Jews just as an ethnarch of Aretas connects him to Aretas, so an ethnarch of Aretas in Damascus says that he had control in Damascus and that he was responsible to Aretas. And that's just what the Pauline text indicates.)

That's what you're supposed to think about.

If so, what else are you willing to write off without any tangible reason?


spin

maryhelena

But maybe that's not such a bad thing anyway.......were there not dozens of other epistles that did not make the cut i.e. made it into the canon of the NT?

There is always going to be a multitude of interpretations - just as Christianity itself became a multitude of sects. Can't remember who said it but the term 'mother of heretics' says a lot about Christianity....

Which interpretation will ultimately, if ultimately is ever going to be achieved, going to be the right one - chance methinks....Who will pull that sword out of the rock, who will discover the archaeological find of the century, who will see clearly? Someone else said that "chance favors the prepared mind" - so no excuse to give up because of the muddle of conflicting theories or the presumed irrationality of the NT writers.....

I've not looked at the question of Corinth. Basically because, superficially, it does not give problems re the historical figures in the NT. However, as I posted earlier, I don't see any beginnings for Christianity prior to 70 CE - that is any beginnings of a structured public nature. Ideas related to interpreting the pre 70 CE historical situation might well have been doing the rounds prior to 70 CE - but I don't think any public outreach of what we know today as Christianity would have been possible.

So, yes, your point re Corinth is well taken - and would, once again, raise questions re the historicity of Paul and the chronology assigned to him in the NT.