Corpus-Paul

[Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net>]

Chris Cutler wrote:
> 
> > I cannot think of any precedent that could have given Paul the
> > right and authority to apprehend anyone in Syria for the HP in
> > Jerusalem.  Aretas IV controlled Damascus and no neighbor
> > hated Antipas and the Judeans more.  This story has never
> > made sense to me.  Why Caiaphas would be interested in
> > Nazarenes in Damascus is beyond me.
> > It has also puzzled me why a "Hebrew of Hebrews" Pharisee
> > would be working for the Sadducee HP.
> >
> > So many puzzlements!
> 
> I suggested in an earlier posting that Damascus was a cognomen for Qumran
> which *was* under the juristiction of the HP.
> 
> My suggestion was roundly dismissed by James Harding in his reply (31
> March):
> 
> "The possibilities outlined below by Chris Cutler have I think been
> suggested before, and fairly univerally dismissed. It would be
> difficult to maintain that Damascus was a standard cognomen for
> Qumran, since it is only characteristic of the D corpus of material..."

The issue, imo, is that it *is* characteristic of the "D corpus"
of texts.  My reading of CD (6:5-19; 7:18-20; 8:21; 8:35) makes
me see "The Land of Damascus" as the "Region of the New Covenant"
which could have meant not only Qumran...if indeed Qumran was an
Essene settlement....but the entire area of the West coast of the
Dead Sea.

Acts 9:19 says "Now for several days he was with the disciples
who were at Damascus."  One of those disciples is named as
Ananius (Hananiya), a Jew.  This is where I start having
problems.  Aretas, seeking revenge for the shameful treatment
of his daughter, waited his chance and invaded Antipas' territories
in 36 CE.  This had to have happened before that time since we
are also looking at the time period for deposing of Caiaphas and
the recall of Pilatus.  This seems to support those who believe
in the earlier date (33ish) for the conversion of Paul.  This being
the case, just who are these "disciples" a mere 36 months after
the crucifixion in a city not known to have a significant Jewish
presence at the time?  I don't know how long Aretas held on to
Syria other than it was back in Roman hands by 62 CE.  I think
it reasonable to say, however, that after 36, Paul would not
have been bandy-legging it about Damascus either as a persecutor
or a proselytizer.

> 
> However, all the points you make Jack indicate the difficulties of
> accepting the Damascus referred to as being the one in Syria. Is there
> therefore not a case for revisiting the possibility that we are talking
> about somewhere else much closer to Jerusalem, and if so is not Qumran at
> least a candidate?

My impression is that the "Land of Damascus" was *not* Qumran/Irhammeleh
but the entire region of the west coast of the Dead Sea which, as Pliny
hints, was the land of the Essenes, separated from the Temple, and
cultivating the area as an agricultural community of the "New Covenant."
I think Hirschfield's campsites are Essene and these people were
cultivating
Balsam in the area of Jericho to En Gedi.  Das wut I think...of course,
I
could be wrong, I was once..in 1948 I think (g)

Jack
-- 
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
jkilmon AT historian.net

http://www.historian.net