spin

the_cave, if you have access to the original Greek, you might check for me if the text says that "the ones who fled" joined Aretas or Herod. The online source I have says Herod, while Whiston says Aretas. Herod would mean that those who fled merely fled from Herod during battle rather than changed sides.


spin

Peter Kirby

The original Greek of Josephus in the Niese edition is at Perseus.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

spin

Thanks Peter. That's my online source from which I got Herod!


spin

the_cave

I'll have to look this up as requested.

Ach, you mean I actually have to read the Campbell article? Very well...

Alright, after perusing it (and a fair amount of research...) I think there's a problem here. Damascus does not seem to have been under the control of Syria at the time! In fact Pliny at about the same time as Josephus (in the Natural History) lists it as a member of the Decapolis (Campbell doesn't seem to think that Josephus agrees, but Josephus doesn't seem to think it's a part of Syria either--I know this because I searched through Josephus, and he mentions that Herod pays a visit to the "strategoi" of Damascus, when Herod himself was (supposedly) procurator of Syria! (War 1.2.1) Josephus doesn't seem to record any subsequent transfer of government for Damascus. As for the legates, wouldn't they have ruled from Antioch? So it's not impossible that Vitellus would have ignored it for the time being, or even altogether.

It's a possibility, that's all. As for what Paul did to get himself into trouble, that's another good question, though if we're to trust the preceding passage, he certainly did get into a lot of trouble! This is maybe another topic.

Well, alright, if you say so.

Other Nabateans did--Aretas III, for example! So it's possible, that's all.

spin

That should be 1.20.4.

AJ usually features improvements on the information in BJ (War). We read in AJ 15.10.1 that, as in BJ, Caesar gave Herod Trachonitis where the Arab "robbers" were in order to maintain order there. However, The information about Herod becoming the hegemon of Syria has been removed.

Yep, Vitellius worked out of Antioch.

It's a matter of credibility of the source. One has to try the veracity of source material in order to use it.

You can look it up yourself.

Oh, no. Not this "it's possible, that's all" apologetic. We're not living in the possible world. We need to deal as best as we can with reality.

Aretas III is what ostensibly 2 Cor 11:32 refers to.


spin

the_cave

I was actually thinking of 1.11.4, so I don't know how I got 1.2.1...must have been looking at something else. (Then, he visits Fabius in 1.12.1. But you're right, it's also in 1.20.4)

Yes, I see that now. But I'm not sure we know that Josephus thought Damascus was a part of Trachonitis--for example, he mentions them separately in Ant. 1.6.4, but then gives the location of "this country", so it seems ambiguous to me.

Which suggests that Joesphus makes mistakes (which is maybe a nice way of saying he can be flat-out wrong, unfortunately. The fact that Pliny thinks Damascus is in the Decapolis suggests Josephus could be wrong there, as well.)

And I don't know how far to trust Josephus on anything at this point!

I meant the context; I don't know enough to know whether the context might change the meaning.

I agree, and there are some things about reality we don't know, and so we first have to determine what's possible and what's impossible.

Yes, and that's possible. It's also possible that Damascus was not a part of Syria (because Josephus doesn't really say whether it is or not), and so Vitellius wouldn't have been concerned with it. All these things are reasonable possibilities, and have to be interpreted in light of other criteria. It seems to me more likely that Damascus was not a part of Syria, than that Paul was actually an author from the 1st century BCE. But then, there are even more possibilities than these two, and furthermore I could simply be wrong. I accept this. Some things just can't be determined one way or the other.

andrewcriddle

The third scenario is certainly conjecture but IMHO quite plausible conjecture.

The whole account by Josephus in Antiquities book 18 ch 5 seems to require that Vitellius the governor of Syria saw the death of Tiberius and accession of Caligula as implying a shift in Imperial policy towards Aretas.

(Certainly Vitellius appears to have continued as governor of Syria for about two more years, during which he brought about successfully a major treaty with the Partians, and it is unlikely that he saw the accession of Caligula as undermining his authority in general rather than the specific hostile policy towards Aretas that Tiberius had ordered.)

Given the friendship between Aretas and Germanicus, the father of Caligula (see Tacitus Annals book 2) such a policy change would be likely and if Rome wished to adopt a pro-Nabatean policy then granting Aretas some jurisdiction over Damascus would be the obvious gesture.

Andrew Criddle

spin

This is Josephus BJ 1.20.4:

The "nest of robbers" is plainly in Trachonitis. It was given to Herod.

Which indicates one must compare BJ with AJ and any difference usually prefer AJ. A historian tries to iron out errors. Josephus shows that where he can he does.

But you don't want to trust him. Such lack of trust is convenient, yet Josephus shows his willingness to do history.

I was making a serious suggestion. If you want to deal with the things you show an inclination for, why not pick up the necessary tools to do so?

History works a little differently. We start off with what we know and expand that knowledge base with either new data or fresh analysis.

Pliny the Elder seems to have no doubt. See NH 13.12, 15.12 & 36.12 where he talks of Damascus in Syria. Pliny was writing not long before the destruction of Pompeii, using data from earlier in the century.

Being on the southern edge of Syria, Damascus had a dual position for it was closer to a group of cities of which it also formed part known as the Decapolis.

This likelihood is based on no data whatsoever. At least you've proffered none, so one assumes that you've got none.

We have only one presence of an Aretas in Damascus, when Aretas III was invited to look after the city by the Damascenes. Beside that we only have "fanta-history" which tries -- for a priori motives -- to make an opportunity for Aretas IV to have control of the city. Paul doesn't supply evidence for one to posit such a control.


spin

spin

What I don't understand is why one would conjecture it here in the first place. If we are starting from scratch, what would ever lead to such a conjecture?


spin

(Thanks for the Tacitus reference. I'll look it up.)

spin

Andrew,

I don't see a friendship between Aretas and Germanicus in Tac. Ann. 2. I just see the former (unnamed) presenting crowns to various people and the most impressive crowns to the most important people, Germanicus and Agrippina I. This is pretty usual eastern obeisance, isn't it?


spin