andrewcriddle

The Geography here is not my strong point but the issue seems to be who at this time held Bostra/Bosra.

If it was at this time part of the Nabatean kingdom, which IMO seems likely, then Aretas would likely have had access to Damascus.

If Bosra/Bostra had been part of the tetrarchy of Philip (which is possible but IMHO unilkely) and had been transferred to Agrippa then access to Damascus by Aretas would be much more problematic.

Andrew Criddle

spin

My thought was not that it was impossible to get there, but that it was so far out of Aretas IV's way. The land east of Perea is desert. The land east of the Decapolis is desert. The land east of Gaulanitis is desert. Things were different at the time of Aretas III when he had direct access through these areas.

Andrew, you've got to be kidding me. We've just had Aretas IV causing border trouble for Herod Antipas in Perea (Gabalitis), then hightailing it back to Petra on the news of Vitellius on his way. Clearly Aretas was restricted to the region east of the Dead Sea and further south. What could possibly make you think that Aretas IV held Bostra?

AJ 18.4.6:

About this time it was that Philip, Herod's brother, departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulanitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty-seven years.

Trachonitis and Batanea certainly go as far east as Bostra, and I'm not sure but I don't think Philip's territory had Bostra. However at the change of emperor that territory went into the hands of Agrippa and I cannot see for the life of me why Caligula would do any favours toward Aretas IV, seeing that Aretas had only recently caused a ruckus and that Agrippa had just gained Philip's lands from Rome and I can't see Caligula putting Agrippa at risk by giving anything to Aretas.

I don't mind contemplating Caligula giving Damascus to Aretas if you have some tangible sign to make you posit the idea. But as I see it, it seems so unlikely given the geo-political state of play in the Trans-Jordan in 37 CE. So, you do need to have something to make you think that Caligula may have given Aretas Damascus, and that something needs to be independent from the Pauline reference, which is really the issue at the centre of the discussion of Aretas having Damascus.


spin

andrewcriddle

Bostra was certainly earlier a part of the Nabatean kingdom and when the kingdom was annexed by Trajan to become province Arabia Petraea Bostra was the new capital.

It would be simplest (though not necessarily correct) to have Bostra regarded as Nabatean at all relevant times.

If you agree that Philips tetrarchy probably didn't include Bostra then who did hold it if not Aretas ?

It is unlikely IMHO to have been under direct Roman control.

Andrew Criddle

spin

There were actually two cities called Bosra. A clue to this is that Bosra is called the "first city" of the Nabataeans, who originate in south Moab, yet Busra ash-Shams is south-east of Damascus. The first city must lie in the home land of the Nabataeans and therefore not too far from Petra. Look at the following map:



These two cities seem to have been long confused, or, better, conflated, with the southern Bozrah being forgotten about. In his judgment on Edom Jeremiah (49:13, 22) mentions Bozrah, as does Isaiah.

We both have been thinking of Bostra in the region of Damascus.

I was confused myself as to the location of Bostra, thinking it much more to the east of Damascus and not so far south. This town would have been in the southern part of Philip's territory. To understand where Trachonitis is in regard to Damascus, look at this map. But for lots of effort I can't find a map which shows both Philip's territory and Bostra together. Nevertheless, one would likely have to cross the territory of Philip, now of Agrippa, to get to Damascus.


spin

ChristMyth

After reading most of the posts above, not only am I in complete confusion about the OP, but I'm feeling like someone is missing out on a great soap opera possibility

spin

C'mon, you know what you were writing about!

Dunno about that, but I'm sure you can appreciate taking one of those innumerable conjectures presented as quasi fact and pulling the legs off it.


spin

andrewcriddle

There are what seem to be reasonably reliable articles on Wikipedia about the two Bosras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozrah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosra

The Nabatean Bostra that became the capital of the Roman province of Arabia seems to be Bostra as Sham.
See also
http://whc.unesco.org/sites/22.htm

According to this
http://www.oki-regensburg.de/bostra.htm
Bostra of Edom was at most a village during the Roman Empire.
Its metropolitan status seems to be post-Islamic.

Andrew Criddle

rlogan

It is rather like heading off to Bangkok right after your born-again conversion.

spin

I did look at all of these before I posted, Andrew.

There is only one issue regarding Bosra, the first city of the Nabataeans. This means before the Romans arrived. Where would the first city of the Nabataeans have been? Would it have been in the Nabataean heartland or would it have been totally out of the Nabataean context? Both Pliny the Elder and Strabo place the Nabataeans well to the south in the context of Idumaea and such.

As for the location of the territory of Philip and of Bostra ash-Sham, I've already shown that the territory of Philip blocks access to Damascus from the south. Ultimately, Bostra is a red herring on your part.


There is no tangible reason to suppose that Caligula would have given anything to Aretas IV. There is no easy way to get access to Damascus from the deep south. This proposition of Caligula giving Damascus to Aretas has all the earmarks of a modern christian fabrication, based on the need to explain away 2 Cor 11:32. Doesn't it to you? Isn't this an emperor's new clothes job?


spin

andrewcriddle

I'm genuinely unclear what the point of dispute here is.

I suggested that Bostra near Damascus was in Nabatean control at all relevant times and proposed as supporting evidence the importance of Bostra in the pre-Roman Nabataean kingdom.

Either you are arguing that Bostra near Damascus was peripheral to the Nabaean world until the Roman annexation, in which case IIUC there is archaeological evidence to the contrary, or I'm not sure what point you are making.

(It is quite possible that Bostra, although influenced by Nabataea, was not under its political control at the time of Aretas IV but I'm not sure how the interesting material you have presented bears on this one way or the other.)
Rightly or wrongly I'm afraid I haven't been convinced. It seems to depend on the precise limits of areas like trachonitis about which I have been unable to find clear evidence.

I quite agree that without the biblical data one would not think that Aretas controlled Damascus under Caligula.

However, it seems IMO entirely plausible that Caligula would wish to support Aretas in the same way as he supported other client kings and if Aretas already held Bostra then extending his control to Damascus would be a plausible gesture of favour.

Andrew Criddle