Solo

So what you are saying is that Aretas, having attacked the empire, by warring with and defeating one of its clients, simply left alone after Tiberius died, with nothing changing on his status of a non-desirable. To me that seems much less realistic than him prying Damascus from the Roman chicken-shit.

Realistically though, he probably did send some assurances to Gaius that he was no enemy of Caesar, and whatever bad blood existed, it was between himself and the bastard deserving to be exiled to Gaul by his imperial majesty.

Passage was from Reiner Riesner, Doug Scott Paul's Early Period, p.82. They argue that investiture of Aretas was unlikely, and that there is no epigraphic/numismatic evidence of Nabatean control of Damascus under the late Julio-Claudians.

Josephus reports :

This makes it sound like Agrippa went to Rome to settle Aretas' problem with Tiberius. At any rate, Aretas seemed to be well aware that the chips were down if he did not eat humble pie.

Almost inconceivable...and yet Roman clients were not sacred cows. Tiberius himself had Archelaus of Cappadocia imprisoned on a charge of treason, and we know through Josephus that Agrippa had info on Herod's involvement with Sejanus against Tiberius (AJ 18.7.1) which led later to his banishment by Caligula. Court intrigues existed, and so it is quite conceivable that Agrippa succeeded in changing the optics of the war on Herod, making it seem like a family feud between two men he did not like each other.

I am not saying that Paul is inventing things. It just might be all that is available to him. The Romans marched to bloody Aretas' nose but withdrew. Some new guy was in charge of the city who was after Paul. Just like Aretas from whose territory Paul was fleeing ? We don't know. We do not know that the entharch was under Aretas. We know though that a Nabatean governor under Aretas III. had the title στρατεγος and not εθναρχης. (op.cit. p.84)

If Paul returned to Damascus somehwere between 37-39CE, the situation with respect to Aretas' IV. pull or influence in this Roman possession might have changed from before.

Will you really ?

Ok, in the bipolar disorder which I am tracking in the NT, two types of delusional mentation is on display: 1) delusions of grandeur and 2) delusions of persecution.

Paul's mania was of the kind that Emil Kraepelin (the psychiatrist who supplied the tools for diagnosing schizophrenia and manic-depression) called 'finely spun'. Paul had an uncanny insight into his condition but like a true manic he was addicted to the ecstatic highs and paid for it with depressive lows and psychosis. 2 Cr 11 he argues his favorite phantasy that he lacks nothing vis-a-vis the superapostles.

Who are the superapostles ? Like Paul, some guys with low socal standing who go around telling all who would listen, that they are sent by God to announce the end of the world. They have visions to prove it ! They brag - they have delusions of grandeur ! But Paul will not be outdone.

Unlike the other preachers of doom, Paul is aware of his exterior (foolish and weak) and uses this insight to his advantage to confound his hearers. If Paul looks like an idiot, if on occasion he appears out of control, and dependent on kindness of strangers, it is what God wants you to think - God makes his wisdom look like folly and his strength look like weakness.

This helps Paul with audience of manics who like himself can be talked into the "prisoners of Christ" mantra. Unlike the superapostles who are really beyond pale, Paul knows how to handle the lows, the depressive side of his condition. He is the servant of Christ and witness to his suffering: he not only lacks nothing in the bragging department in grandeur, but he far outdoes any saint (when bragging about his leadership) in being persecuted. Notice the 'mania' in Paul's setting side by side assaults by people and natural calamities (acts of God) and feelings of discomfort :

2 Cr 11:24-26 Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.

Can you see the cognitive problem : danger from Gentiles, danger from Jews, danger from shipwrecks, danger from rivers and robbers (in that order of appearance)... suffering from being beaten by rods, and injured by stones and on top of that having sleepless nights (you bet !), being hungry and cold !?

Can you see that Paul's suffering is overstated ? That is how persecutory mania announces itself !

yours as ever,
Jiri

spin

What can be and what is are not the same thing.

I think you have a choice. The Romans wrestled Damascus from Aretas, AJ 14.29ff, in 65 BCE (that was the date I was working with) and Scaurus marched on Petra in 62 BCE, AJ 14.80.

Now that I have a slightly better idea of what you were saying, it's either 98 years or 101. Which would you prefer?

In fact, it's arbitrary and indicative of nothing definite.



Josephus states something and you impose it on 2 Cor 11:32. There is a difference of perspective there.


spin

spin

No. He attacked a lackey and caused a stir, but that was no real skin on the Roman collective nose, hence the halfhearted retaliation by Vitellius. It just would have put Aretas in bad. Remember that Aretas was lucky to get away with it because of the change of emperor, an event which usually meant a shakeup internally and danger externally (threat of war was usual in times like that).

(No, it doesn't. Agrippa had purely self-interest at heart.)

I don't think these cases are comparable. Aretas, a ruler from outside the empire, attacked Herod Antipas.

I thought my last sentence had already covered this.

So Aretas III put a general over Damascus. Was that necessary in your scenario for Aretas IV?

We are still at these "might haves" when there seems to be no reason for them.

Perhaps, if you tried to deal with the issue. Maybe I missed it but it seems you are happily telling me of your view of what was going on in the head of Paul in the main section of the boasting passage, then stop and not touch the how the appendage 2 Cor 11:30-33 actually work with the main section. It is after all that part which has the stuff about Aretas.

Should make you think of Monty Python...
1) I used to live in a tiny hut with my fifteen brothers and sisters.
2) That's nothing. I used to live in a shoebox by the side of the road...
3) Luxury. I used to live in a cage at the bottom of a lake...

I hope you enjoyed that rehearsal.


spin

andrewcriddle

I'm not sure how far this is relevant, but I think one can argue that Nabataea under Aretas IV was a client kingdom of the Roman empire in the same way that Judea under Herod the Great was.

If so, Aretas was not really a ruler from outside the empire.

Andrew Criddle

judge

Problem is that you never established that the Lucan writer messed up WRT Lysanias.
Here is the thread.

Lyasnias and Luke

I think you owe it to your self to put this stuff in for peer review, rather than conclude that your theory must be right.
.

spin

This is not correct. Rome did not receive Nabataea either by conquest or bequest. Rome influenced realms beyond its borders, but Nabataea was taking into the empire until late in the century.


spin

spin

Argument from ignorance is not convincing.


spin

andrewcriddle

Bowersock argues in Roman Arabia (or via: amazon.co.uk) on the basis of Strabo and the absence of Aretan coins in 3, 2 and 1 BCE that Nabataea was briefly annexed from say 3 -1 BCE and returned to Aretas as a client kingdom in 1 AD

Andrew Criddle

spin

As I said, Rome influenced beyond its borders. Herod's kingdom was given to him by Rome after it had been taken by Pompey, as was the case with Syria, and various other client kingdoms. How does Strabo support your use of him? And Bowersock's opinion seems not to based on anything other than the shaky start to Aretas IV's reign, which included Syllaeus trying to embroil the Romans in Nabataean affairs. Any real evidence?


spin

maryhelena

Undoubtedly. And what is in 2 Cor.11:32 makes no mention of Aretas III...

No more arbitrary than your linking Aretas III with the Aretas mentioned in 2 Cor.11:32.

Which would I prefer - I already said the relevant number symbolism is 100 years.....100 years between the siege of Jerusalem by Aretas III and his subsequent defeat by Pompey, in 64/63 BC, and the defeat of the army of Herod Antipas by Aretas IV in 36/37 CE.

This 100 year historical relationship between the two Aretas is something that would not have gone unnoticed by anyone interested in number symbolism. Philo for instance. Particularly as this historical connection between the two kings would have been evident during his own life time. This historical connection was 'out there', so to speak, and available for any NT writer to apply to the backdating of a storyline regarding the apostle Paul.

Well, I thought historical sources are to be used for investigating what 2 Cor.11:32 was about! Surely, we are not going to reject sources because they might challenge our particular viewpoint?

And Josephus, if historical, would have been able to have contact with people living at the time of the war against Herod Antipas by Aretas IV.
Josephus even saying that the Jews viewed the destruction of the army of Herod Antipas as being from God because of John the Baptist. Aretas IV would have been a popular talking point....

And who knows but that Josephus might even have had his own connection to Philo - and even if not a a one on one connection - he was in a close relationship with Agrippa II - the brother of Bernice who was at one time married to the nephew of Philo...