rlogan

Thank you for responding, spin.

Quite true that I assumed "state backed". But shucks - I think it overstated to say "just as easily" these other forms of harassment. A possibility, but a weaker one.


I don't know the matter well enough. Hence, the call for assistance.

Right.


I thought you were dating them to 160 or thereabouts. If he was supposedly martyred in 107 then I'm not understanding how they can't be spurrious.

Yes, I meant orthodox.

I am, under Cui Bono, leaning towards the Marcionites. But quite true they are likely to "glom on" to and extend pre-existing tracts.


Thanks.

heh. Wispy, perhaps. But I like it...

spin

But then, how does one date the martyrdom of Iggy? He seems to have been alive when Polycarp wrote his letter to the Philippians (Ch 13). When was this letter written? I have attempted to argue for the 160s, making the death of Ignatius from that period as well. (This analysis should, if I had the energy, be put under recheck.)

I think I was saying something quite different: that Marcion collected the Pauline and deutero-Pauline texts and by the time of people like Irenaeus those texts were different from the ones collected by the Marcionites, ie there is just as much hance of the orthodox "correcting" the Marcionite collection as there is the Marcionites doctoring earlier texts.


spin

gurugeorge

Have just been reading a Price article which is on the evolution of the Pauline Canon as a whole, but it might be worth tossing into the mix. After an extensive survey of various theories about the evolution of the Pauline Canon, he puts his own theory forward:-

yalla

spin:"The argument against persecution is one based on assuming that which Paul refers to is state backed. We attach all the church's presentation of history in the word "persecution", while it could just as easily harassment from any source, strife with others in Paul."

rlogan: "But shucks - I think it overstated to say "just as easily" these other forms of harassment. A possibility, but a weaker one."

Paul 2 Cor 6.4f and 2 Cor 11.23f ........ great endurance afflictions hardships calamities labours
hunger dishonour ..........shipwrecked [3x] adrift at sea
danger in the wilderness sleepness night[s] hunger thirst
danger from robbers from my own people..Gentiles..false
brethren..at sea...from rivers

I think paul is a right whinger...is there anyone or anyTHING that has not "picked on him"?
Would we seriously equate the sea, robbers, wilderness, rivers etc as organised state persecution?
Perhaps we are reading into this long list of complaints against people and nature a later political viewpoint that Christians were persecuted.
There is now doubt that Paul claims persecution by the Jews and the Romans but I think that should be looked at in the context that he claims everyone and every thing is agen him.

andrewcriddle

Thanks for that link it's helpful.

Andrew Criddle

the_cave

Yes, a region called Syria under the direct rule of the Romans (and divided up into more than one political entity, one of which was called "Syria")

Not so--Damascus was the capital of Coele-Syria, which was granted to various "strategoi" (including Herod himself at one point).

Because he was the Aretas who lived closest to the traditional date for Paul. Not only that, he was the Aretas who lived closet to the earliest manuscripts we have for Paul (much later, of course.)

It...doesn't. That's what I'm saying--if you consider it independently, Aretas III does seem like the simplest reference.

I think I see what you're saying here. Seems reasonable.

However, to get back to an older post of yours, there's something that's still bothering me.

Do we really have evidence that Aretas engaged in this sort of advocacy? If not, then how can you say with confidence that he did? And doesn't the text seem to contradict your interpretation--it does in fact seem to say there was some sort of boundary dispute between Herod and Aretas (though it doesn't say what sort.) Furthermore, Josephus says that after Philip died, Tiberius gave Trachontis to Syria--so are we looking at the period immediately after Philip's death, but before it was given to Syria? If not, what is Herod doing advocating for Arabs under Syria's authority?

How? All the land east of the Jordan was now under Syrian authority. Or are you saying it was before Syria got control?

Before 34, the area north of Gamala was in Philip's hands--it would seem that Aretas began making a fuss after Philip died. Doesn't Campbell make a similar argument in that article? Furthermore (and Campbell makes this point too) there was a brief period around 34 when there was no governor in Syria, because Vitellius hadn't arrived yet. (Note that this would also help explain your theory that it was Antipas who was being pushy!)

He couldn't because of Philip's authority. Then, after Philip died and before Vitellius arrived, he had a chance.

I doubt there was any taking--if any of this is valid, it seems more likely that Aretas would simply gain the allegiance of Bedouin Damascus.

Because Caesar told him to capture Aretas personally.

As Campbell suggests, Vitellius was scared of the Parthians, and wanted to leave his other legions in place.

And yet, after Tiberius died, Vitellius called the entire expedition off! In fact, he never moves against Aretas.

I guess it does make sense that Tiberius' instructions could have been based soley on his support for Antipas...so, you're saying that the dispute over Gamala was entirely Antipas' doing, and so once Aretas destroyed his army, he (Aretas) had no need or desire to do more?

This still doesn't make complete sense...because I don't understand how Antipas could move against any of the cities near Gamala without usurping the authority of Syria (unless, that is, it was before they were given to Syria.)

spin

I'm sorry. This quibble has gone on long enough. I don't see any point in frigging around with your perceived parallel with Troas.

Whoa. A strategos is not someone who has possession of anything. It is an administrative position for someone else.

That's your problem, not mine. I'm interested in history, not tradition per se. The subject of this thread is dating Paul from scratch, using the available evidence, not the accretions of later tradition.

Well, why the song and dance?

Advocacy is a political act whose consequences involve giving the advocate leverage in an area in which he has no direct control. The context is clear, in that Aretas is after reasons to go after Herod Antipas.

Herod? Do you mean Aretas?

Perhaps he chased some Arabs out of his territory across the border. Who knows? I merely gave the indication that there was some local reason for grievance. The text suggests nothing more.

I didn't really give any theory as to how Herod Antipas might have encroached.

Philip died in 34 CE and Vitellius arrived in 35 CE not too long after the beginning of the year, ie after he had finished his consulship in Rome, so we are dealing with a period of less than a year for news to reach Petra, for the full situation to be ascertained, for Aretas IV to decide what he would do, for him to organize and equip a force to take advantage of the lack of presence. Hopeful. And you think that Aretas would do all this knowing that it would piss the Romans off, ie the muscling into Roman territory.

(There's something in this that I haven't connected yet: remember those who were from Philip's tetrarchy who were the cause of Herod Antipas's loss in the battle?)

What's this crap about "Bedouin Damascus"?? Damascus was the biggest city in the area. It was relatively fertile land around with a solid river source of water. It was not in itself the territory of bedouin anything. (Please look at a map to see where Trachonitis is in relation to Damascus.)

And mere hypothetical "allegiance" to Aretas wouldn't give him a political officer who could control -- as a garrison would -- the gates of Damascus, as 2 Cor indicates.

Had Aretas IV had control over Damascus, that would have to have been resolved. It's obvious he didn't.

Vitellius was a career man. He was not of a noble family, but worked at his profession. No, he was not scared. He was there specifically because he would not have been afraid.

Because Aretas IV's squabble with Herod Antipas was of no concern to Syria.

AJ 18.2.3 tells us that Herod Antipas "was in great favor with Tiberius".

I didn't say whose doing it was. I merely accepted that as it bordered Herod Antipas's possessions it makes sense that he was involved. Aretas didn't do anything until he had stronger motive to have a go at Herod Antipas.

Herod Antipas was in the good books with Rome at the time of Tiberius. There is no sign that he was physically encroaching on Rome's power. I don't imagine that he would have. He was under the Roman umbrella anyway. Aretas IV was not. I see no scope for the latter to be insinuated physically into the Gamala problem.


spin

the_cave

Sure, but Coele-Syria was its own principality at certain times; it's what Aretas III was made king of, for one, and it was given to Cleopatra at another point. I don't think we really know for sure what its status was after that, besides the fact that it was in some way subject to the Romans.

Great, then see my second point--Aretas IV is the closest Aretas to the actual manuscript evidence for Paul.

The OP was about dating the Pauline corpus, so I was considering the corpus as a whole in light of this passage in 2 Cor. However, you have said you are only interested in considering it independently, and so I am now discussing it only on those merits.

Yes, but...why is this evidence that that's what he was doing in the case of the boundary question near Gamala?

Yes, Aretas, sorry.

"Perhaps"? "Who knows"? Sheer conjecture. Why is it justified in your case, but not in any others?

The text also doesn't say that the boundary dispute was due to Aretas' advocacy for Arabs living in the area (of Gamala, I guess...) This is merely a plausible hypothesis on your part.

Then why should I take your suggestions seriously?

I don't think it makes sense for there to be any real military presence near Gamala, no. It seems more likely to have been saber-rattling at the time, or maybe an attempt to sway the local powers one way or another. But on the other hand, Josephus doesn't say where the battle between Herod and Antipas was fought--wouldn't Gamala be just as good a place as any?

Yeah, they're still interesting. What do you make of it?

I just meant the fact that it was an important trading center for the surrounding Arab population.

The city must have had a garrison. The garrison was watching the gates. That's all the text says.

If Aretas were in Petra (but with some authority in distant Damascus), along with his army, and Caesar wanted his head, Petra is the obvious place to go.

I am using "scared" informally, to mean "cautious about". The Parthians were a threat, and Vitellius was in charge of keeping them at bay.

Right--except we know that there was some problem with Gamala, which by that time was under the authority of Syria. So why was Vitellius unconcerned?

But it matters whose doing it was, doesn't it? If there's a border controversy near Gamala, someone is making a claim for control over the region. Gamala belonged to Syria (ostensibly). And once Herod's army had been destroyed, what would be stopping Aretas from making good on his claim near Gamala?

But then it must have been Aretas who was claiming a border near Gamala. And besides, how can you say the text supports this? It clearly says both Herod and Aretas had a conflict about their limits near Gamala. Perhaps I don't quite understand what you mean by "physical encroachment".

But then, just what was that problem? It sounds very much like two conflicting claims over what was ostensibly Syrian territory.

spin

Both Aretas III and Cleopatra are red herrings here. It was in Aretas's hands before the Romans first arrived under Pompey and took direct possession of the whole area including Damascus and it was in Roman hands after Cleopatra's time.

This doesn't seem to be providing anything other than a piece of chronological information.

I haven't seen indications of this.

The alternative is that Aretas was aggressing on Roman territory.

Because it is irrelevant as to why.

Gamala was in the territory of Philip until 34 CE. After that it was under Syrian control.

You don't have to. You are supposed to be making a substantive case, not asking me to make suggestions.

Gamala is in Bashan, ie Batanaea, Philip's, then Syria's, territory. If I understand you are trying to push all the events into what you consider to be the window between the death of Philip and the arrival of Vitellius, as though Aretas IV would get the news of Philip's death then see that there was some opportunity to have agents go up to Gamala and stimulate some squabble with Herod Antipas, while organizing an army and provisions to prosecute a war with Herod Antipas.

I still haven't connected it.

What evidence is this based on?

And the only evidence we have for Aretas having control of Damascus in before 65 BCE.

So it would have been alright to leave Damascus in the hands of the Nabateans.

Amongst other things. The Romans were on guard against the Parthians ever since Crassus got himself killed.

Because there was no threat to Roman possessions.

Gamala was a tad north of the Yarmuk. Damascus was 45 kilometres to the north.

OK, while we are here in Gamala, what else can we do? Hmmm, I know! We can piss the Romans off by romping up to Damascus to bail up the apostle Paul as he comes out of Damascus.

This doesn't seem related in any way to what you were commenting about.

Whiston inserts the word "their".

ho de arxhn exQras tauthn poihsamenos peri te horwn en ghi thi Gamalikhi

"He made it the first enmity [ie the repudiation], also about borders in the land of the Gamaliteans."

Squabbles could happen inside the borders of Roman territory, but they wouldn't necessarily provoke any response from the Romans because it was an intramural problem. Aretas IV coming into the zone to stake some claim of his own is a physical encroachment of Roman territory, ie entering into Roman territory to stake a claim. It would have been different had Aretas been under the Roman umbrella: that would have made it an intramural squabble.

I have stated what seems to me the only probable understanding of the situation, ie that there was some problem between the Arabs of the Gamala area and Herod Antipas. Aretas supported the Arabs of Gamala.

Let us assume for a moment that Aretas decided to flaunt the southern limits of Roman territory, how will that help you put Aretas in Damascus?


spin

Pilate

SPIN,
There are four Nabatean Kings named aretas. Below is the one linked to Paul.
Here is what the ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY says:
4. Aretas IV (9–8 b.c.–a.d. 40–41). The zenith of Nabatean political and economic fortunes took place during the almost half-century of his lengthy reign.
The lengthy reign of Aretas is the best documented of any Nabatean monarch. The coinage issued in his reign is immense, representing an estimated 80 percent of all Nabatean coinage.
The only specific biblical reference to Aretas IV appears in Paul’s letter of 2 Corinthians in which he refers to his escape in a basket lowered from a window in the city wall that was guarded by the “governor [ethnarch] under king Aretas� (11:32–33). The circumstances remain obscure, but the Jewish and Nabatean Arab community appear to have acted in concert against Paul (cf. Acts 9:24).

Freedman, D. N. 1996, c1992. The Anchor Bible Dictionary . Doubleday: New York