Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 06-04-2009, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There's no need for it to be accurate.

I'm glad you finally agree with this. So, we now both agree that "ethnarch" can mean the leader of a colony or city quarter

No it doesn't mean whtever you want it to. So stop projecting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

But in either case, it would actually represent something. If the author of 2 Cor 11:32 was trying to refer to Aretas III, we need to know why he would think Paul escaped from Damascus under Aretas III.

You are still totally confused here. You might think of Aretas III. The interpolator may only have had the info about an Aretas (who we know is III, but that's irrelevant).

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

More like the time in Acts where Paul addresses Jerusalem in Hebrew. It's unlikely the author of Acts knew what "Hebrew" really meant. In this case, Eusebius (and/or Papias) could just have been confused.

No, there was a gospel called Matthew and another called Matthias. Maybe the latter was written in Hebrew (or, more likely, Aramaic). Anyway, there's a good chance Eusebius and/or Papias was confused.

Why not? We don't even know what these writings of "Matthew" were. They could have been Jewish-Christian sayings and miracle stories. Don't assume it was what we now call the Gospel of Matthew.

(I personally think it's more likely that Papias was refering to some Aramaic text.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

An explanation given by a non-functional theory has no weight.

I have presented a perfectly functional theory: the ethnarch in Damascus was not the ruler of Damascus.

There is no reason from the text to assume such a thing.

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

And he had minions who guarded the city. Just because it might be wrong doesn't mean it isn't functional.

the_cave · 06-06-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

No it doesn't mean whtever you want it to. So stop projecting.

It can plausibly mean what there is evidence for. I have offered a plausible meaning, with evidence. We know that the leader of the Alexandrian Jewish quarter was called an ethnarch prior to Tiberius, regardless of what happened after that. We know that there were Nabatean ethnarchs in general. So we know it's not out of the realm of possibility that the Nabateans could have had their own ethnarch in their Damascus quarter. (BTW there is other evidence that they indeed had such a quarter there.)

While I'm at it, I have to say the evidence for an objection to Josephus on Strabo is pretty flimsy. Reinach's conjecture is limited to a single note at the end of his 1924 article on the edict of Claudius, which reads simply "Text probably altered. [He then cites In Flacc. x. 74 where Augustus replaces the ethnarch/genarch with a council.] Read instead archontas." ("Texte probablement altere. [....] Lire plutot archontas.") Not much to hang your hat on. One conjecture by Reinach without any textual variants to support it. If you want to talk about unsubstantiated conjectures, this one's all yours. But again, it's not even important--the Alexandrian Jews had an ethnarch prior to Tiberius. That's undisputed.

Quote:

You might think of Aretas III. The interpolator may only have had the info about an Aretas (who we know is III, but that's irrelevant).

You are correct, and I am not confused. Let me ask you this: I assume that the author had an Aretas in mind, but didn't have his facts straight about which Aretas did what when. Do you agree? Why do you think the author speaks of Aretas and Damascus?

DCHindley · 06-06-2009, 08:37 PM

Did you note my earlier post about the similarity of Paul's escape from Aretas' Ethnarch to that of Agrippa I, who escaped the clutches of a local Roman procurator who detained him on account of a 300,000 drachma debt to the Emperor himself, by cutting the moorings of his ship at night and stealing from the harbor before anyone noticed? I suggested Paul once owed Aretas money. The Damascus basket story serves no function if added by an interpolator, over against a story from Paul's past offered to illustrate his "weakness" (that is, he was once in such dire financial straights with Aretas the king that he skipped town rather than pay the piper).

The story in Josephus about poor Agrippa I bumming around the Mediterranean, a mere leach on fair society borrowing ever larger sums on the credit of his well connected wife, until the lot of good fortune shone upon him and he was granted a small territory, then the title king, then ever more territory, until ultimately, for four years until his death, he ruled as king the entirety of Herod the Great's former kingdom, is also a lesson about strength preceded by weakness.

Paul doesn't actually say when he had this Damascan misadventure in 2 Cor. It was the author of Acts who connects this event (although with different protagonists) with a conversion vision mentioned in Ch 12. I prefer to interpret the letters independently of the Acts.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What about the possibility that the two terms might not be as specific as you'd like them to be?

Well, do you have textual or inscriptional evidence showing that this is so?

Quote:

I don't see why you give the interpolator such a specific place in time. If they were confused about the reference then they could be any point in time after Paul's writing. I've pointed to Paul's letters written away from the Levant. The hypothetical interpolator would probably also be as well. You can't conclude much about the quality of his knowledge.

But why would he write about an escape from Damascus at all?

robto · 07-16-2009, 08:01 AM

I have (belatedly) been trying to understand what went on in this and the previous threads on the subject of Paul, Damascus, and Aretas. I came across this page, which points to the evidence of an Aretas coin from Damascus (possibly) around 37 AD.

Quote:

As Tiberias died in C.E. 37, and as the Arabian affair was completely settled in 39, it is evident that the date of Paul’s conversion must lie somewhere between 34 and 36. This date is further fixed by a Damascus coin, with the image of King Aretas and the date 101. If that date points to the Pompian era, it equals C.E. 37, making the date of Paul’s conversion C.E. 34. (T. E. Mionnet, Description des medailles antiques greques et romaines, V [1811], 284f.). (Dosker 1986:288–289.)

There are many uncertainties here: Is it really Aretas? Is the interpretation of the date correct? Does "Damascus coin" mean one found in Damascus or one minted there? Etc.

Leaving all that aside for the moment, Andrew's posts discussing Aretan coins lead me to wonder: are there any more recent findings on Aretan coins in Damascus? Is this archaeological evidence relevant to the debate at all? (Coins found in Damascus could have been carried there from elsewhere, and imply nothing about who was in control.)

Toto · 07-16-2009, 08:52 AM

That page is drawing information from The Protestant theological and ecclesiastical encyclopedia By John Henry Augustus Bomberger, Johann Jakob Herzog, 1860, which can be read on Google books, at p.246.

Quote:

Neither can it be claimed, with Anger and others, that Aretas was not at this time governor of Damascus, for this contradicts the words of the Apostle (2 Cor. 11 : 32). We are therefore inclined to the view that the Emperor Caius, being well disposed to Aretas, gave him freely that Damascus which (Joseph. Ant. 13, 5. 2) had | formerly belonged to his predecessors. Such gifts from the Roman emperors were not uncommon in this age. This view is favored by the Damascus coins. Those which show the subjection of the city to Rome bear only the image of Caesar Augustus, and then of Nero and his successors. According to these, Damascus, during the time of Caius and Claudius, may have been the possession of other princes (Eckhel, doctr. num. T. I. vol. III. p. 331; Mionnet, descrip. des medailles antiques, turn. V. p. 285). Mionnet, p. 284, also mentions a Damascus coin on which are the King Aretas and the year 101 (A. D.). Following the analogy of the Syrian coins, this year must be either of the Aera Pompeiana or the Aera Ccesariana. The year 101 of the former would be from the autumn of A. D. 37 to A. D. 38, and of the latter it would be from the autumn of A. D. 52 to A. D. 53. Cf. Winer; Anger, de temporum us actis apostol. ralione, p. 173; Wieseler, Chronology of the Apostolic Age. K. Wieseler.—Seelye.

The confessional interests are evident.

Compare The life and epistles of St. Paul By William John Conybeare, John Saul Howson (also on Google books

Quote:

Mr. Burgon, of the British Museum, says in a letter: "I have carefully looked at our two coins of Aretas, and compared them with those described by Mionnet, p. 284. I feel convinced that they are much earlier than the reigns of Caligula or Claudius, and rank with the coins of the later Seleucidse or Tigranes. These coins of Aretas do not appear to have dates: and, even granting that the coin of Mionnet, No. 20. p. 284., bears AP, which I doubt, he himself (no mean judge in such a matter) does not cite AP as a date, — and I should not admit it as such, till other coins be produced with unquestionable dates. Nothing is more common than for the most careful and learned men to draw false inferences from books on coins, if they have not practical knowledge on the subject to guide them in matters which may be regarded as technical. Sestini (Classes Generates, Florence, 1821, p. 141.) does cite AP as a date, and he is an authority as good as Mionnet: but in this case I think him wrong. . . .

spin · 07-18-2009, 07:11 AM

Quote:

As Tiberias died in C.E. 37, and as the Arabian affair was completely settled in 39, it is evident that the date of Paul’s conversion must lie somewhere between 34 and 36. This date is further fixed by a Damascus coin, with the image of King Aretas and the date 101. If that date points to the Pompian era, it equals C.E. 37, making the date of Paul’s conversion C.E. 34. (T. E. Mionnet, Description des medailles antiques greques et romaines, V [1811], 284f.). (Dosker 1986:288–289.)

Umm, would someone care to explain to me why on earth the Nabataeans would dated anything from the time of Pompey?? some foreigner who sent an army to attack Petra? I guess it yields an acceptable date for some reason or other.

I guess one is not prepared to say that they don't know how the Nabataeans dated events at the time. But when one doesn't know, one can speculate for tendentious purposes.

:vomit:

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.