spin

Hmmm, Paul wrong about the fact that Damascus was under the control of Aretas, that the ethnarch was Aretas's? Like he was never there? I find it hard to believe.

(Well, Greek.)

One can always cherry-pick the data to get what they want. When the Pauline letter says that the ethnarch was under Aretas, it was mistaken, you say. OK, what else in the passage was mistaken?

Herod Antipas had nothing to do with Damascus. The conflict between Antipas and Aretas ostensibly regarding the divorce of the former's Nabataean wife seems to have taken place where Perea touched Nabataea. At least that's how Feldman's translation of AJ 18.113 understands it, ie a dispute over Gabalitis which Feldman footnotes, "a district south of Moabitis in Idumaea".

We know that Damascus was securely in the possession of the Romans circa 34-5 CE (18.153-4). And the territory of Herod Philip (between Damascus and Nabataea) had temporarily passed back to Roman Syria in 34 CE (18.108) and then into the hands of Agrippa soon after Caligula was enthroned.

The only thing that the war between Antipas and Aretas would have done was piss the Romans off regarding Aretas.

There is no opportunity for Aretas to have gained power to any degree over Damascus in this period.


spin

Solo

You are reading my mind, spin. I was thinking the ethnarch was Agrippa himself.


It did piss them off. Tiberius sent Vitellius. But then Agrippa goes to Rome to talk it out with Tiberius, Tiberius dies, and Agrippa makes friends with Caligula, who gives him not just Herod Philip's possessions, but Antipas' tetrarchy as well. Antipas is exiled to Lyons in Gaul. You missed that part in your cherry picking of AJ 18, didn't you ?

All I'm saying is: 1) the cause of Roman enmity to Aretas was removed with Tiberius' death and Antipas' fall from grace, 2) it is reasonable to expect Agrippa to have treated Aretas with respect, having won Caligula over against the tetrarch, their common rival, 3) Paul might have had issues with Aretas outside Damascus, and might have gone there for cover believing that the Nabatean king was still the enemy of Caesar.

Just a little theory, spin.... I won't lose any sleep if you don't like it.

Jiri

spin

Actually, Agrippa already knew the imperial household well. He was already a friend of Caligula.

No. It's simply irrelevant. Antipas got done in because of Herodias' pushing him to press his luck too much. It doesn't change the fact that the Nabataeans had precipitated a conflict against the Roman client. Maybe Vitellius dragged his heals because he wasn't interested in a relatively small scuffle. That doesn't put the Nabataeans in anyone's good books.

No. The action against Aretas was halted with the death of Tiberius. Nothing more.

Antipas was not a rival of Agrippa. He had provided some aid to Agrippa (AJ 18.149). I see no reason to expect Agrippa to show any respect for Aretas, who had attacked a member of his family.

That's good.


spin

andrewcriddle

IF the passage is a post-Pauline interpolation then the interpolator almost certainly dated the beginnings of the history of Christianity as overlapping the reign of the Aretas who we know as the fourth. This is unlikely to be coincidence.

On reflection I regard the hypothetical opinions of the hypothetical interpolator as somewhat of a distraction. Would you have been happier if I had said "If this passage is authentically Pauline, something which we have no manuscript evidence whatever to doubt, then it almost certainly refers to Aretas IV" ?

On the substantive issue of Nabataean authority in Damascus this puzzling passage from Justin's Against Trypho may be relevant. One serious problem with the passage is the phrase although now it belongs to what is called Syrophoenicia which appears to refer to conditions from the late 2nd century CE. IF we regard this phrase as a later gloss (and it does seem to interrupt the argument) then the passage seems to put Damascus within the sphere of influence of Arabia. We have something similar from Tertullian Against the Jews These passages might just refer to the early 2nd century extent of the Roman province of Arabia but I have problems with the idea that Trajan's Arabia included Damascus although the previous Nabataean kingdom made no claim to it. Alternatively both Justin and Tertullian may be wrong but this seems problematic in itself.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

Previous detailed discussion on Damascus and Aretas

2005 discussion on dating Paul's letters

show_no_mercy

What if "Paul" really was writing in the 1st century BCE? And he was talking about the Yeshu ha-Notzri of the Talmud who was also from around that time period?

JoeWallack

JW:
What if "Paul" really was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TqMmf1aAkA

spin

I've just realized why my response to Andrew hasn't appeared... I was forced to shut down Windows and hadn't posted it... hmmm. Not so precocious Alzheimer's.

If said interpolator knew enough about Nabataean history and was not working in Asia Minor or further away, where most of Paul's letters were said to have been written. Though it's alright for a Lucan writer to mess up historically with Quirinius and Lysanias, it's not alright for the person responsible for the boasting appendix to mess up.

The evangelical fallback line. Sure, it's good for amusement.

Tertullian writing from north Africa 160 years after the fact makes a good witness, Andrew,... perhaps indirectly to the statement of Justin 40 years earlier. If you see them being wrong about something of a century before as problematic, it might be a slight awareness of what you are trying to do with the evidence you are trying to muster.

If you'd checked a reference I gave Solo, AJ 18.153-4, you'd know that Damascus was under direct Roman juridical control circa 35 CE. The Damascenes appealed to Agrippa for support. Any thought that Caligula was going to do a sudden about-face regarding Damascus or giving an uncooperative external kingdom control over it, is not only baseless, it simply doesn't reflect Roman policy.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Spin, I've inventoried your error at ErrancyWiki:

2 Corinthians 11:32

with the following summary:

No external evidence that Aretas was king of Damascus at this time:

2 Corinthians is commonly dated to c. 55. It is unlikely that Aretas was king of Damascus at this time for the following reasons:

1) Dating. The externally known Aretas IV reigned until 40.

2) Geographical. Aretas IV was king of Nabataea, on the wrong side of Israel from Damascus.

3) Conflict. Aretas IV was in conflict with Rome late in his career.

4) Source. Aretas III did control Damascus in the 1st century BCE establishing a source for error.

5) Significance. It's unlikely that Rome would have granted outside control to a major city like Damascus.

Obviously you can add to the above that in general "Paul" lacks credibility as an author. This is mindful of the Lysanias error.

Good work Spin. Keep em coming.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

maryhelena

From a mythicist position there is no reason at all to think that the apostle Paul was historical. No Jesus of Nazareth doing the rounds between 29/33 CE means there were no followers of said Jesus for Saul/Paul to be persecuting - let alone there being disciples/followers of said Jesus in Damascus for Paul to visit.

The storyline regarding the apostle Paul has, like the storyline regarding Jesus of Nazareth, been backdated to follow on, as it were, the storyline regarding Jesus. The Jesus storyline that connects his baptism with the 15th year of Tiberius is dealing only with a historical time frame not with a historical Jesus - so with the storyline regarding Paul and Aretas.

Luke 3:1, the 15th year of Tiberius, in 29 CE, is connected to the rule of Lysanias of Abilene in 40 BC - indicating a 70 year number symbolism.

In 2 Cor.11:32/33 there is only one ruler mentioned - Aretas. The ambiguity in this passage, as with Luke 3:1, does suggest something other than a historical error on the part of the NT writer. Since history indicates that Aretas III and Aretas IV are not connected due to both having control of Damascus, another inference is probable. In this case there is a 100 year time spam between the defeat of Aretas III by Pompey (in 64/63 CE) and the victory of Aretas IV over the army of Herod Antipas (in 36/37 CE) A number symbolism, a time frame of 100 years - at the end of which is placed the apostle Paul. (similar to what Josephus has done with James in 62/63 CE, 100 years from the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great in 37 BC.)

Both Josephus and gospel writer Luke have found the year 63 CE to be significant - the year Pompey, after defeating Aretas III, entered the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem temple. Luke placing the census of Quirinius and the birth of Jesus in 6 CE - and Josephus placing his Essene prophet Simon in that same year of 6 CE. - both using a 70 year number symbolism. The year 37 CE - 100 years after Pompey and the events of 63 BC - is marked with the birth of Josephus and the placing of the apostle Paul escaping in a basket over the wall of Damascus. (echoes of Jericho perhaps - hence indicating a number symbolism being involved).

It is quite probable that the use of a number symbolism in regard to Aretes and the apostle Paul is not the only reason why this NT passage is left ambiguous. It is not Aretas III that is problematic for the gospel and NT storyline - the gospel storyline has a problem regarding Aretas IV - hence the less said about him the better.......

Backdating (perhaps inserting is a more appropriate term...)the Jesus of Nazareth storyline, to the 15th year of Tiberius, 29/30 CE, the year of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, raises the issue of the date of the divorce of Herod Antipas from the daughter of Aretas IV. Wikipedia gives two dates for this divorce and the marriage of Antipas to Herodias - 23 CE (under Herodias)and 36 CE (under Aretas IV). One date fits the timeline of the gospel storyline and the other date does not. As the later date would fit more with the desire of Aretas IV to avenge his family honour over his daughter’s divorce from Herod Antipas, the gospel storyline could well be extended to fit in with the divorce/war scenario around 36/37 CE - however, it does not appear that NT commentators are very keen on this idea.

Consequently, it appears that NT commentators are more prepared to have Aretas IV contain his anger over the divorce of his daughter from Herod Antipas for somewhere between 7 and 14 years than have the time line of the gospel storyline disturbed.

NT commentators and backdating NT writers aside (in order to accommodate prophecy and number symbolisms) it would appear more rational for Aretas IV to make his displeasure over the divorce of his daughter the tipping point towards war with Herod Antipas. Thus, the implication for the gospel storyline is that Herodias was not married to Herod Antipas between 29 CE and 33 CE. This marriage has been backdated to fit the gospel story timeline. Consequently, this divorce and re-marriage of Herod Antipas to Herodias cannot now be re-connected to the historical events of 36/37 CE without compromising the whole NT timeline. The ministry of Jesus continued after the death of John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate ending his rule in 36 CE....

So, whether its in regard to Paul, Aretas and Damascus or Herod Antipas and Aretas IV - the NT timeline has problems with Aretas...Ironical really - a father’s anger something that could jeopardize a carefully backdated NT storyline....

(footnote: if the whole gospel storyline is brought forward to 36/37 CE and Paul’ conversion/rebirth is placed at 37 CE - the year given for the birth of Josephus - synchronism with the first 30 years of the life storyline of Josephus becomes rather evident. In other words, the timeline of Josephus’ first 30 years have been backdated, used as a model, for the NT storyline regarding the apostle Paul).