the_cave

Well, do you have textual or inscriptional evidence showing that this is so?

But why would he write about an escape from Damascus at all?

spin

The word strategos is used in more than one way and you've tried to show that this is the case for ethnarch (while I referred to Liddell and Scott pointing to an application of ethnarch as sheik).

Why would someone write about a naked youth running away? Why would someone say that Matthew was written in Hebrew when the Matthew we have was obviously written in Greek (despite the contortions of judge)? Traditions develop outside the realm of what necessarily happened.


spin

spin

Got most of that the first time. It's still an argument from silence.

Herod was installed by Rome in a Roman possession.

One's simply a local proxy for Rome. The other Rome was trying to manipulate because of the machinations of Syllaeus.

I'll say it again: Nabataea was not a possession of Rome. Damascus (and Judea) was.


spin :wave:

the_cave

But you have it backwards now--what's at stake is the meaning of "ethnarch", not "strategos". I've shown how "ethnarch" has been used in a limited sense, whereas you haven't shown how it could be used by Nabateans in a broader (military) sense.

Or, show me how "strategos" would be used to mean someone with a non-military jurisdiction, and I'll consider your position more carefully.

Because it represents someone. (IMO it represents Paul, but never mind that for now. It is at least connected with the youth in Secret Mark.)

Either because a) "Hebrew" means "Aramaic" in this context b) "Matthew" is Matthias, who wrote in Hebrew, or c) because Matthew really was translated from Greek to Hebrew at an early date, and the writer (Papias) was confused.

And they also develop within the realm of what really happened. If your theory can't explain why 2 Cor 11:32 was written, and someone else's theory can, then that is a strike against your theory.

Solo

When out of argument turn on the charm, spin ! But you have a credibility problem here, my friend. My source (Riesner/Scott, Paul's Early Period that I gave you in #5959754) asserts "unanimity" of evidence (on p.84) that the Nabatean kings' designation of a governor was strategos. The authors cite Josephus as one source, but add also a number of works attesting to inscriptions with that title. Schuerer's History is cited, J.Cantineau, M.Sartre, H.I. Macadam and J.Taylor.

So, let me cling to dreams () while you talk through your hat.

Jiri

spin

Yeah well, umm, you're certainly talking through experience. What the Nabataeans might have designated a governor as and what Josephus or his source would have called the person need not be the same.


spin


:wave: ttfn :wave:

spin

Sense is a useful word. You need to make some. We are working through either Paul or an interpolator to get the right status. There's no need for it to be accurate. Who is the current prime minister of Italy? Some would say Berlusconi, but Italy doesn't have a prime minister; it has a president of the camera. You see that people will understand me although my term is not accurate.

You don't need to consider my position at all and you could have saved yourself the effort of asking me to show you by consulting the dictionary. Or do a search for it in Luke or Acts. But hey, knock yourself out.

Yeah, yeah. Maybe it's John Mark. Maybe it's just a forced OT "prophecy" fulfillment.

Like it did in the story about asking the Babylonian to speak in Aramaic rather than Hebrew? This attempt of yours is totally irrelevant.

This doesn't succeed in communicating. Are you saying that there were two gospels named Matthew?

Best of a bad lot. Just highly improbable. Anything give you the idea that there was a big enough population of interested Hebrew speakers to justify a text being translated into Hebrew?

An explanation given by a non-functional theory has no weight.


spin

:wave: ttfn :wave:

maryhelena

No knowledge re who the apostles in Jerusalem were - just names in a storyline....It was the Jerusalem reference that was of interest i.e. the claimed events happening prior to its fall in 70 CE.

Taken literally, 2 Cor.11:32, assuming either Aretas III or Aretas IV, makes no sense re the chronology of the NT storyline regarding the apostle Paul in Damascus - thus my preference is to look for a non-historical interpretation of the passage...The other options, the NT writer was a bad historian, the passage is an interpolation - don't, to my mind, offer anything that could further an investigation into the early origins of Christianity.

aa5874

There is another option, the Pauline writer wrote late, long after 70 CE, and got his information about Aretas from some source.

How could a person just simply interpolate a letter of Paul and such erroneous information is not noticed and removed?

The Church is the benefactor of all the information in the Pauline letters, they must know the origin of all the information therein. The Church must have proof-read all the Pauline letters and verified the information before they declared them authentic and genuine.

After examining Justin Martyr's writing it cannot be verified that the Pauline letters were first circulated and known to exist before 70 CE.

the_cave

I'm glad you finally agree with this. So, we now both agree that "ethnarch" can mean the leader of a colony or city quarter

But in either case, it would actually represent something. If the author of 2 Cor 11:32 was trying to refer to Aretas III, we need to know why he would think Paul escaped from Damascus under Aretas III.

More like the time in Acts where Paul addresses Jerusalem in Hebrew. It's unlikely the author of Acts knew what "Hebrew" really meant. In this case, Eusebius (and/or Papias) could just have been confused.

No, there was a gospel called Matthew and another called Matthias. Maybe the latter was written in Hebrew (or, more likely, Aramaic). Anyway, there's a good chance Eusebius and/or Papias was confused.

Why not? We don't even know what these writings of "Matthew" were. They could have been Jewish-Christian sayings and miracle stories. Don't assume it was what we now call the Gospel of Matthew.

(I personally think it's more likely that Papias was refering to some Aramaic text.)

I have presented a perfectly functional theory: the ethnarch in Damascus was not the ruler of Damascus. And he had minions who guarded the city. Just because it might be wrong doesn't mean it isn't functional.