DCHindley

Per 1 Maccabees 14:47 - 15:2 the Hasmonean ruler Simon accepted the offer of appointment "to act as high priest [of the Jewish temple], governor general [of Judea], and ethnarch of the Jewish people and priests" given by Antiochus VII Sidetes, son of Demetrius I, and younger brother of Demetrius II who was plotting to take over the Seleucid kingdom while still a hostage of the Parthians.

Ant 19.283 speaks of ethnarchs in charge of Jewish affairs in Alexandria, the city that was the emperor's personal property along with all of Egypt.

Hyrcanus II was appointed Ethnarch of the Jews WHILE HEROD WAS MADE the KING of a domain that included Judea. In that case, Herod was king of a domain while Hyrcanus II was representative of the Jewish people subject to Herod's domain, and officiated as high priest of the national temple. These (regional domain and national representation) were always 2 separate things.

Archelaus, Herod's son, was given about half of Herod's domain and the title Ethnarch, although here he is clearly the king of a royal domain and certainly not the High Priest. Two other brothers are given smaller domains and the titles of Tetrarch.

After the War, Origen (Letter to Africanus 14) calls that the Nasi of the Sanhedrin that was permitted to meet at Yavneh in Galilee in his own day the "Ethnarch," a position which Epiphanius (Medicine Chest 30.4 & 11 I think)apparently called the "Patriarch".

Anyhow, getting back to the time of Aretas IV, who was clearly a king, as far as I know the Nabatean Arabs did not have a formal religious organization, and hence no ethnarch in the sense that the Jews did with their temple and the associated need to have a defender of their religious oriented legal privileges.

However, if we look at "Ethnarch" as a local leader of a non-Greek people resident in a Greek environment (like the Jews were in Alexandria, only here resident in Damascus), we really do not need to think of this Ethnarch as leader of the whole city, although as I have shown elsewhere he could well have been.

So if this reference to an Ethnarch under Aretas in Damascus in 1 Corinthians, with power to guard the gates to arrest Paul if he attempted to exit the city, is bona-fide, we have at minimum a local leader with the authority to detain a foreigner (non-Greek) in behalf of the Nabatean king, presumably for deportation to Petra for trial, or at maximum, the legal appointed governor of a city state that was under nominal control of the king of the client kingdom of Nabatean Arabia.

This still does not answer the obvious question: Why would the Ethnarch of an Arabian king want to arrest Paul, a Jew? Presumably he could not claim Paul was a subject of Aretas, making it hard to believe that he would try to arrest Paul on the behalf of the Jews. But he could claim Paul was a debtor of king Aretas, or perhaps claim Paul had committed a crime against subjects or possessions of Aretas, and then request of the local governor or city council that Paul be handed over to Aretas for trial or disposition in Petra, the capital of Nabatean Arabia.

See Ant 18.158, where Herennius Capito, the procurator of Jamnia, learned that Agrippa I was in Anthedon, and had him detained as a debtor to the emperor for a 300,000 silver drachmae debt. Agrippa pretended to be preparing to comply, when he cut his ship's mooring lines free at night and slipping out of the harbor.

Sound familiar??

Being the retainer of a Herodian household seems to have made Paul a fair target for an ambitious official subject to Aretas, who thought Paul might owe money to his client. If Jews were involved in this attempt at apprehension, it may be that Paul actually owed a Herodian household money and another Jewish retainer tipped off the Arabian Ethnarch that Paul was in town, hoping to have him handed over and pressure him to pay up, but this latter scenario would only work of the Ethnarch ran the entire city, and then I'd be surprised he would do this for Jews in the city, unless he was promised a cut.

DCH

maryhelena

There is the world of difference, surely, in saying that "texts themselves are part of history" than claiming that what is within those text is history....
Placing a storyline within a historical context does not confer historicity upon the storyline. Particularly so, as with the gospel storyline, it is a storyline with a prophetic intent.

And lets not abandon prophetic interpretations, mythology, symbolism, number symbolism, theology/spirituality etc.....

I see no argument for such a date - maybe you have one?

'No good reason' - maybe you don't see a reason - perhaps others might well do....What a mythicist does need, if the mythicist theory is every going to make headway against the HJ camp, is an argument that deals with the gospel storyline. A mythicist theory based upon a Cosmic Christ actually needs nothing at all outside of a purely intellectual concept - it can float free as can any intellectual abstraction. Little wonder that such a mythicist position holds little attraction and is a very hard sell - today - as it would have done prior to 70 CE within a Jewish environment.

Some other people might like to made a decision - being an agnostic on the issue is fine if that is what suits one - others might rather take a stand for either side.

"Stop blathering"......spin, you don't have to reply to my posts if they are getting under your skin - but please don't try and tell me what I can and cannot do.

spin, I am offering a viewpoint - if you don't like it - simply say so - there is no need to be personal in your response.

spin

Agreed.

And no-one here has claimed that it did.

I don't consider it having "a prophetic intent", but storylines with questionable content can still contain information which reflects specific events from the past. You mightn't accept the story that Sargon of Akkad was fetched from the river in a basket, but that doesn't reflect on the historicity of Sargon.

Well, Aretas III the only Nabataean with control over Damascus is mentioned in 2 Cor 11:32.

I am specifically talking about argument with evidential basis. You have not provided one, nor has anyone else. So, "No good reason".

The HJ camp is in just the same straights as the MJ camp: lack of evidence.

That is not sufficient to deal with the evidence that the texts reflect as to the development of the religion. We have texts and we must place them. The natural placement of Paul's letters is during his lifetime. The other materials are much harder because we have no clear single person behind them. But meaningful attempt to place them is part of the task. Without doing so, you don't have much of an explanation.

Can you serious propose anything more based on the available evidence? I think not.

If you don't want a critical reaction -- and that "stop blathering" is in a critical framework --, then it's wiser not to put such unsupported statements of what is probable in the public eye. As it was expressed, it was totally baseless.

I could easily repeat my earlier response: "If you say so...." There is nothing personal in my response. I don't know you, so I can have nothing personal in what was said to you. But you have weaved your way through what I said, taking little notice of my consistent comments. What I said after "stop blathering", was "You cannot make empty claims of probability like this. Probability isn't based on personal desire." That's what you should have dealt with. That's the crunch. It may be right or wrong, but that's what I think you should confront. There is, as I said, nothing personal. But if you want me to pussyfoot, I'll lose interest. It's the argument and the evidence that is the meat in the actual discussion of BC&H.


spin

maryhelena

Actually, the text does not identify which Aretas it is referencing. So, you are reading something into the text which is just not there.
Really! "stop blathering" is part of a critical response. Hardly.

Quite, then I suggest that your reading of 2 Cor.11:32 goes beyond what is written in the text. The text does not mention Aretas III.

As to my mentioning a later date for early Christianity i.e. after the events of 70 CE - the JM list has been having quite a discussion on this issue. The thread is entitled Re: Paul: 70 CE - 95 CE. Here are a few points from Jake Jones:

spin

Why are you not dealing with the only directly relevant external data? When Aemilius Scaurus went to Damascus in 65 BCE he forced Aretas III out of the city and from that time onward Damascus was a possession of the Roman empire.

"Stop blathering" belonged with a number of other statements. You are going off on a tangent.

See above.

Same problem. Argument from silence. It is usually not useful for history. There is no real way to test the actual argument. Arguments based on silence regarding early mikva'ot and synagogues have in recent decades died a nasty public death. The old adage, "the lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" still applies.

What one needs to do is work from evidence. If the argument follows, it is the most objective approach and hardest to wave away.


spin

maryhelena

Because your reference is not directly relevant to the text. The text is ambiguous and does not name Aretas III. The time frame for the NT Paul, following on from the gospel storyline, a storyline dated to the 15th year of Tiberius in 29 CE, is a time frame that does not accommodate Aretas III with the time line of the storyline of the apostle Paul. When a NT text is at odds with a historical event other options open up as to its interpretation.

As I have previous pointed out - the gospel of Luke has put together historical events that are chronological at odds - i.e. the rule of Lysanias of Abilene with the 15th year of Tiberius. Rather than label the gospel writer as being a bad historian one can look for other reasons as to why the writer has chosen to connect historical events that are out of order chronologically.

The same with 2 Cor.11:32 - No Aretas ruled Damascus at the time the NT chronology places Paul there.

Looking to history to sort out this 'problem' will not provide an answer. Assuming an interpolation is a dead end and provides no insight to the intent of the NT writer.

In the case of Luke 3:1 - there is a 70 year number symbolism being utilized.

In the case of 2 Cor 11:32 - there is a 100 year number symbolism being utilized. And this interpretation of the passage allows the ambiguity regarding the reference to Aretas to accomodate both Aretas III and Aretas IV i.e. the 100 years between the war of Aretas III with Pompey and the war between Aretas IV and Herod Antipas.

Solo

There is no evidence for direct Roman control of the city between 34 CE (Tiberius) and 65 CE (Nero). Further, Gaius established in the Eastern borderland a set of client states. Although it appears unlikely that Aretas IV was given investiture over Damascus, it is probable that the Nabatean made a deal with Rome after Tiberius and supported militarily a Roman-appointed ethnarch in Damascus. The political detail of the arrangement may have been unclear to the hoi polloi who may have misread the relationship between the two rulers based on their strength, as that of a king and his vassal. Nothing in 2 Cor 11. argues exclusively for Aretas III. unless of course one decides to play a high-horse literalist.

Jiri

spin

You are mixing texts. Either we are dealing with Pauline works or we are not. We work from historical information we have verified, such as the data regarding Aretas's possession of Damascus before 65 BCE after the fall of the Seleucid rump.

If you'd like to do so...

You seem to be assuming a time-frame now, one you've already rejected. But if you want to defend the historical indications from the gospels, I will happily argue against you.

Why do you say that?

Arguments based on number symbolism are frequently shakey and beg testing. Just think of all the crap about gematria. Christians have manipulated numbers for centuries (think of Daniel's 49 weeks of years or "the time, times and half a time"), so don't expect a warm welcome with this approach.

You can impose this symbolism, but that's as far as you can get.

Was that really 100 years or was it 103 years? Is there a 103 year number symbolism? Or can we fudge it? Perhaps we could ask the writer... no? Oh well.


spin

spin

I've already supplied a secure dated indication for direct control from Josephus and a legal issue under the control of Rome, just before Agrippa became king. It was around this time that the was between Herod Antipas and Aretas IV took place. Aretas became persona non grata and there was a half-hearted attempt to reign him in, but Tiberius died and there were more important things to do. Any dalliance with this persona non grata is not realistic.

(The relevant page was not available to me from Google books.)

And what evidence are you basing this on?

The only reason to mention it is that he was the only Nabataean ruler known to have had possession of Damascus and Aretas was outside the Roman dominion, ie all the territories within were the possession either of the Roman people through the senate or in our case the possession of the emperor through right of conquest or bequest. This was the case with all the client kingdoms and principalities. Nabataea was neither conquered nor given by bequest. It was merely a foreign realm somewhat under the thumb of Rome. Such a war between Herod Antipas and Aretas is almost inconceivable within the Roman empire. There is no reason to think that any Nabataean king other than Aretas III had sway over Damascus. So we are left with the line that Paul didn't know what he was talking about. Not a particularly strong line of thought. We could take the_cave's approach and say that maybe Paul "made things up", ie he was delusional. Another not particularly strong line of thought. I'd rather trust Paul and say that he would have known better -- you learn quickly who the boss of a place is when you have to go there --, and so I think the information itself, not the writer, is suspect.

Consider the discourse in 2 Cor 11:21b-29. "What have you lot got to boast about. I can beat you all, so don't boast." Then we get this bit tacked on at the end hooked onto boasting, which turns out to be this basket case and nothing to do with the main discourse. If you find that cohesive, I'll give up.


spin

maryhelena

Mixing texts? I have demonstrated how, within the NT, a text that contains historical data out of chronological order can be interpreted as being an application of a number symbolism.
Sorry about that - I'm afraid I don't have the exact day or month from which the number symbolism in 2 Cor.11:32 would be the perfect fit. Suffice to say that there is 100 years between the siege of Jerusalem by Aretas III and his subsequent defeat by Pompey in 64 BC - to the victory of Aretas IV over the army of Herod Antipas in 36/37 CE. That there is 100 years between these two events, between Aretas III and Aretas IV going to war against Jewish interests - well, not much I can do about that....

And no, as far as I can see there is no 103 year number symbolism.... Its 100 years - and no, number symbolism is not an exact science.....all it does is give one a wake up call to consider something other than a chronological historical chain of events...Consider how Josephus has placed James (63/62 CE) 100 years after the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great. (37 BC). The NT, in 2 Cor.11:32, has simply placed the apostle Paul at the end of a 100 year number symbolism.