andrewcriddle

The passage clearly means that Germanicus was a guest at a banquet given by Aretas, and that he received valuable presents from him, to an extent that his hostile colleague Piso regardedas as inappropriate.

This doesn't imply they were close buddies but it does seem to go beyond formal diplomatic courtesies. Piso in his speech against 'luxury' may be implying that Germanicus is over sympathetic to oriental practices and customs.

FWIW Barrett in 'Caligula the Corruption of Power' p 183 explains Vitellius breaking off the campaign against Aretas on Caligula's accession, in terms of the previous friendly relations between Aretas and Germanicus.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

There is apparently (I've come across the claim in several secondary works but never studied the primary sources on this point) an absence of any municipal coinage struck in Damascus between roughly CE 34 and CE 62.

Some have interpreted this as evidence that during the reigns of Caligula and Claudius, (both of whom on the whole encouraged and expanded client kingdoms), Damascus was controlled by a client kingdom such as the Nabateans. I'm rather dubious myself but the absence of municipal coin issues for a quarter of a century requires some explanation.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

Kenneh F. Doig, New Testament Chronology That sounds like an adequate explanation.

the_cave

I agree!

Yes, I do use Perseus from time to time, in my own clumsy way.

The idea is, in the passage, Ida seems to be to Troas as Damascus is to Syria.

I agree with this, too.

True, so it's possible that Damascus was returned as well, though not certian. I admit this might be the best evidence it was. On the other hand, Damascus doesn't seem to have actually been under Herod's rule, so Caesar couldn't have separated it from Herod's government (unless he's saying they were taken from Archelaus, which I think doesn't make sense--very hard to keep track of all this!). Again, no real positive evidence of its status, unfortunately (But I also admit this goes both ways.)

But it couldn't have, if it had already been returned along with Gadara and Hippos. But, then, if Archelaus had in fact been in charge of Damascus, then alright. But do we have any information that this was the case?

True, but that's an even smaller possibility! It's the significant possibilities that need attention.

Oh...well, in that case, we might not have any real disagreement. All by itself, the simplest explanation is, it's about Aretas III. There's a smaller chance it's somehow about Aretas IV, but that's a more complicated explanation. All by itself, that is. I guess that's all I have to say about it for now.

the_cave

Is this really true? I don't really know much about how the Empire worked, but in that passage in War (BJ) 1.20.4, the Damascenes ask Varro to take their case to Caesar. Wouldn't this suggest that the Damascenes were not under the direct control of Syria, but rather that the Damascenes needed to petition Caesar directly for help--and that Varro likewise needed Caesar's permission before intervening?

spin

The idea is that Ida and Macedonia had the terebinth as did Damascus.

Start with Herod's realm, divide it in three, then subtract those cities from Archelaus's portion.

Rome showed that those portions not given to the heirs was returned to Syria.

Arbitrary choices become significant possibilities when you are not doing history.

Obviously, not "all by itself", for we have employed historical evidence. One is free to introduce whatever historical evidence that can be shown to be relevant to the issue they like.

This is worded in such a way as to indicate arbitration -- probably between two separate parts of Roman controlled territory (each administered in different ways). There was no military intent as to take control of Damascus, which would have been Varro's direct interest.


spin

rlogan

Hi Spin. Sorry it took a bit to get back. Got to beat the winter with the chores here. Never enough wood.

I wanted to read the piece that Toto gave us on the Dutch Radical school carefully. It is more of a review article, and has many tentacles that require exploration for which I have insufficient stock of pre-existing knowldge.

But the primary issue that takes my attention now in approaching Biblical literature is articulated in that piece here:

Now, the article has already ruled out first century authorship on a number of grounds, some of which are here:

There are some working premises in the piece, such as 1 Clement and Ignatia as forgeries, that I adhere to - and a hypothesis I find plausible:

Rather than the Marcionite version of Pauline Epistles being revions to the Catholic, it is the reverse: The Marcionite version is the earlier and the Catholics "sanitized" them.

As stated in the article:

I am incapable of evaluating the assertion that the "canon of ten Pauline Epistles is demonstratable for the first time: the Marcionites". But that surely adds weight to the thesis along with the Marcionite flavor to Paul in general.

There's more here in the article, of course.

Well, yes - and the issue of Catholic redaction to Marcionite originals, although speculative, I find attractive in a context of argument from best explanation for the whole. (Cui bono at the core of the analysis).

[/QUOTE]

Cheers...

the_cave

Yes--Ida in Troas (a region), and Damascus in Syria (by parallelism, a region.)

Are you assuming that Herod was in posession of Damascus? He wasn't. The division of Herod's empire doesn't tell us what happened to Damascus.

I don't think that the hypothesis that Aretas IV had control of Damascus is arbitrary. It might be wrong, but it's not arbitrary.

All I meant was "all by itself" as in "considered independently of the rest of the text".

It does seem to indicate arbitration--which would therefore suggest that Varro was not in posession of it. However, you're right that Rome might nevertheless have been in control of it (leaving aside for now what "control" might mean.) It's unclear. But it at least seem to establish that it was still independent of Syria.

But he couldn't have unless Caesar had given him permission. So, Damascus was not controlled by Syria (though it could have still been controlled by Rome, yes.)

spin

A Syria under the direct rule of the Romans. Your parallel with Troas seems inconsequential notwithstanding your insistence.

The Roman approach was possessions were attached to Syria, as in the case of Hippos and Gadara, then the entire kingdom of Judaea. Damascus is never ceded in the literature, so we are left with a Damascus attached to Roman Syria

Why would you ever contemplate Aretas IV, given the historical evidence?

How does the rest of 2 Corinthians help you?

No. It suggests that he was not in control of Trachonitis though it too came under the Roman umbrella.

There was no military threat to a part of Roman rule (Damascus), just a bunch of robbers causing a nuisance and Varro can turn a blind eye. You let the locals bash it out, but if there is an external military threat then there is no hestiation in intervening. Varro, like all governors of Syria had certain standing functions, primary being to defend the region from foreign threat. He didn't need permission to carry out his express task.


spin

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. The repudiation of Israel is just as easily a counter-rejection by excluded gentiles. Those and the rest of the arguments seem circumstantial. We talk about letters which are genuinely Pauline as against those "deutero-Pauline", because these latter contain elements which presuppose a more evolved christian universe. There may be something to some of these arguments but none seems strong.

I don't see, if we can date Ignatius to the period I have attempted to place the letters, that one has to cry forgery. Clement seems only dated when it is through the assumption by later commentators that it is the Clement found in the Pauline letters so we have a circularity.

This is generally my approach with the works first collected by the followers of Marcion, eg Lk, that they were tidied up (though "Cathliks" is not necessary, unless you just mean orthodox).

The question is, who is putting the cart before the horse? Does Marcion preserve Paul's work because it was found to be conducive, or were these works written for the (Marcionite) occasion?

The Marcionite collection is the first appearance of the works in history. One doesn't know what the state of them was, but we know that later orthodox writers perceived them as different from the texts that they had before them. One cannot argue either way, but one cannot presume that they were in the form they were later found in before Marcion got his hands on them.

It's all speculative, reasonable, and perhaps someone might like to make it all more tangible, for, as it is, it's just the whisps of a theory.


spin