Sauron

How utterly arrogant of you. What evidence do you have that the Jordanian govt website is 'selectively parsed'? None at all.

They aren't counting your little raiding party as a war, and (given Jordan's centrality to the Nabatean kingdom - the capital at Busrah, and the stone city of Petra) they know that the Nabateans are a distinctive people from the generic term "Arab" as it was used by ancient sources. The plain fact is that they are making the same distinction that I am. It's merely inconvenient for you.


Yes, and as I explained below, neither of your sources support a claim of war against the Nabateans. Grant is specifically of no help to you - your citation says only 'Arab'. But naming the group as 'Arab' does not prove that they were Nabatean.

Your sources are specialists in Herod - not in the Nabateans. For that reason, they are inferior to Hammond, who specializes in that question. Of course, you are free to write Hammond, and inform him that he is incorrect. Keep me posted on what his response is.



Unnecessary. A minor military expedition to punish bandits does not a war make.

Your sources are specialists in Herod - not in the Nabateans. For that reason, they are inferior to Hammond, who specializes in that question. Of course, you are free to write Hammond, and inform him that he is incorrect. Keep me posted on what his response is.

No, he did not - your own source confirmed that Herod did not invade Nabatea:

With Syllaeus in Rome Herod could not intervene in Nabatea directly,

You need to read your own sources before posting them - it will prevent such embarrassment. FYI - I've deleted the rest of your rambling claim for lack of support.

And dobermans are dogs. But owning a dog doesn't equate to owning a doberman.

Your comment "but Nabateans were Arabs" proves nothing, precisely because they are not interchangeable with them. In addition, Hammond specifically cites passages from Josephus as examples where "Arab" clearly NOT equate to Nabatean:

Other references to ‘Arabs’ / ‘Arabia’ are either clearly not references to Nabataeans / Nabataene, or are, at best, extremely dubious
(e.g., Jos. AJ 8.8.2; 9.1.2, 10.3, 12.4.11, 13.1.4, 4.8, 14.3, 15.1; 145.5.5, 10.2, 11.3; 16.10.10-2; 17.3.2; BJ 1.4.7ff., 29.3ff., I Macc. 5.39 [cf. 5.24-25], 9.66, 11.16-17, 39-40, 12.31; II Macc. 12.10-11; Diod. 2.54.3; 19.69.1 and Geer’s n. 3 to this passage in LCL; Strabo 16.2.20, 3.1-3, 4.1-2, 4.18, 4.22, 4.25; Pliny, 12.25.69, 32.62).

So a claim that Herod attacked Arabs does not substantiate a war with Nabateans.

I already knew all this. However, that web citation relies entirely upon Josephus - a fact which the site itself plainly admits:

Again we are entirely dependant on the narrative of Josephus, based on a much fuller contemporary narrative by Nicolus of Damascus

But as I have already indicated (and as Hammond indicates) Josephus used 'Arab' in contexts that could not possibly have been a reference to the Nabateans. So the website citation does you no good.

Moreover, your use of this citation refutes your own earlier source, Richardson, who says:

Just as Josephus is confused about the details of Pheroras and Salome, he is also confused about Herod's difficulties with Nabatea and Syllaeus.

So if you're going to use Richardson, and Richardson considers Josephus to be 'confused', then you're stuck with that. You cannot simultaneously use Richardson (who rejects the Josephus account) and then cite a website that accepts the Josephus' account, while trying to prove the same point.

Furthermore, this website confirms what I said about the size/scope of Herod's military engagement - that it was a punitive raid, and not a war at all:

After a successful invasion and a minor battle, Herod settled a colony of three thousand Idumaeans to control Trachonitis, and wrote to the Roman officials explaining his actions.

Yes, I did. That website is an Intro to NT history course - an excellent, general information site. However, Hammond's work deals in greater depth with the history, culture and settlement pattern of Nabateans. It is a more detailed investigation of the narrowly defined subject matter of who the Nabateans were, and who they were not, in the context of other contemporary peoples.

For that reason, and on the specific question of whether or not the Arabs mentioned by ancient writers were Nabateans or not - on that specific question, Hammond's work trumps a general information website, including this Intro to NT history website. You have not proven that these were Nabateans.


Huh?

Your two extra cites add nothing to your original unsupported claim, for obvious reasons: all you've done is point out the titles of these two cites. But re-iterating the titles isn't additional evidence; the titles of the sections you quoted were already present in your first post.

However, as I indicated and Hammond indicated, Josephus, Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, etc. all used "Arab" in contexts that could not have meant Nabatean.

No mention is made of killing a relative of any leader.

I've alrady dealt with Grant's area of expertise, vs. Hammond's. On the question of Nabatean identity, Hammond trumps Grant.


As I indicated: the detail of Hammonds work on the specific question of who was, and wasn't, a Nabatean in ancient sources trumps any general information website.

Secondly, the internet site (www.nabatea.net) you quoted undercuts your argument. Herod's military action was a punitive raid across the border, to punish bandits and rebels. It was not a war:

<a href="http://www.nabataea.net/mhistory.html" target="_blank">http://www.nabataea.net/mhistory.html</a>

After a successful invasion and a minor battle, Herod settled a colony of three thousand Idumaeans to control Trachonitis, and wrote to the Roman officials explaining his actions.

On the contrary. I have demonstrated that you have overblown the scope of this military conflict, and that you have mis-identified the target. Your sources are specialists in Herod - not in the Nabateans. For that reason, they are inferior to Hammond, who specializes in that question. Of course, you are free to write Hammond, and inform him that he is incorrect. Keep me posted on what his response is.

I have deleted the rest of your chest-thumping exercise as erroneous and irrelevant.

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Sauron

Originally posted by Layman:

Actually, I do have a sense of time involved. It clearly says that the situation was reversed the following year.


Except that there was no such census, and you have failed to answer the questions I posed earlier about it. And the narrow time window hurts you, instead of helps you.

Even if we were talking about Herod falling from grace totally and never recovering in 10 BCE, that still doesn't solve your problem of no evidence for any census.

1. You're overstating the delays in travel. If Rome had wanted Herod to conduct a census because of the military action against the Arabs, then it would only be a matter of a few weeks or a month to carry that message to Herod from Rome. And considering how small Judea was, as a region, relying on "delays of travel" is pretty feeble of you.

2. As for the preparatory time for such a census - that doesn't help your argument. It just expands the window of time/opportunity for someone to notice the event, and describe it in writing.

3. And of course, given the Judean mind-set and the political situation, any such census would have been accompanied by revolt, protest, etc. - as happened later, when a census was conducted in Judea. Unless you're now going to postulate a mysterious census that nobody recorded anywhere, and nobody objected to?

4. And of course, your are interchanging the concept of a tax and a census, when they really are not the same thing at all - for reasons that Carrier outlines in his essay.

Again: it is still your argument that Herod:
a. conducted a pre-Quirinius census, as
b. a punishment from Rome, for a military action against Arabs;
c. without any Roman records of such a command from Rome;
d. Without any local records of such a census taking place in Judea; and
e. without any precedent for a census in any other non-provincial area in the Roman Empire

You are stacking five ad-hoc assumptions on top of each other, without a shred of proof for even one of them.

Moreover, out of all the possible options that Rome had at its command, you have no reason to specifically postulate that Rome would have required a census as a punitive measure. Postulating for the 'hell' of it is unscholarly. I could just as easily say:

• It's also possible that the Arab event caused Rome to station an extra garrison in Jerusalem to watch Herod.
• It's also possible that the Arab event caused Rome to send spies to observe Herod and report back on him.
• It's also possible that the Arab event caused Rome to start plotting the removal of Herod.
• Etc. etc. etc.

But no one postulates any of these above actions. Why? Because there is no supporting evidence for any of them, and no need to engage in such hypothetical exercises.

Saying that "Rome might have imposed a taxation on Herod" as a result of the military action against Arabs is just speculation without evidence, and special pleading. You need a census. Desperately. But your evidence is zero.

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Layman

It is selectively parsed by you. But I will admit to not counting a Jordanian Government website as the best source for unbiased or historical inquiry.

And what distinction is that? That the military action was not really a war? Semantics. That the military action was not against the Nabateans? Clearly erroneous.

No. Once again, Richardson titles the whole section THE NABATEAN WAR (12-9 BCE). So you are wrong. Richardson does not only say "Arab," he specifically labels the entire affair as 1) a war, and 2) with the Nabateans.

Actually, Michael Grant is renowned as an expert in ancient history, not just King Herod. He is the author of such books as: Cities of Vesuvius, Classical Greeks, Cleopatra, Emperor Constantine, Gladiators The Bloody Truth, Rise of the Greeks, and, Roman Emperors - A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome 31 BC - AD 476.

And you are completely ignoring the quote from the website that is devoted entirely to Nabatean history. It too also describes the action as 1) a war, and 2) with the Nabateans: In 9 BC a war broke out between Herod and the Nabataeans.

And, perhaps most importantly, you are blatantly misrepresenting Hammond. Nowhere does he deny that the military action undertaken by Herod in 9 BCE was against the Nabateans. In fact, he explicitly affirms that it is and that the Josephus references to this issue are legitimate references to the Nabateans.

Hammond directs us to a citation in Josephus that he describes as a "classical reference[] to the Nabataens." The reference is to Jewish Antiquities, 16.9.4ff., which is about the events you are quibbling with:

Also note that Hammond clearly describes Sylleus' involvement in the Nabatean government. Josephus later describes how Sylleus attempts to seize the Nabatean throne after Obodas III, King of the Nabataeans dies.

So, far from offering you any support, Hammond actually notes that this event described by Josephus is a legitimate classical reference to the Nabateans. Perhaps you should have noted when Hammond wrote this: Finally, the elasticity of the use of the terms 'Arab' / 'Arabs' and 'Arabia' must be acknowledged as terms, sometimes inclusive and sometimes exclusive, of ‘Nabatu' / ‘Nabataean' / ‘Nabataene'.

Actually, Richardson explicitly makes clear that Herod eventually did cross the border to attack the rebels sheltered in Nabatea. "Augustus was interested in only one question: had Herod cross the border with a military force? The answer: yes."

As an interesting aside, Richardson provides an important insight into why this action may have upset Augustus so much: Perowne, p. 155, points out that this was just as Augustus was dedicating the Ara Pacis, the "Altar of Peace." Herod was, in effect, undercutting Augustus' claims to an unrivalled period of peace and security.

Peter Richardson, Herod, King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans, at 280.

None of the passages you cited were passages that have to deal with the events we are discussing. As I showed above, Hammond explicitly confirms that the Josephus references to the affair at issue is discussing the Nabateans. And remember, Hammond specifically affirms that: Finally, the elasticity of the use of the terms 'Arab' / 'Arabs' and 'Arabia' must be acknowledged as terms, sometimes inclusive and sometimes exclusive, of ‘Nabatu' / ‘Nabataean' / ‘Nabataene'.

Actually, as shown above, Hammond clearly indicates that the Josephus passages at issue are dealing with the Nabateans. The fact that Josephus also uses Arab in other contexts where he does not mean the Nabateans is, therefore, irrelevant. Hammond, Grant, Richardson, the Nabetan.net website all affirm what you cannot admit: this military action was against the Nabateans. Remember, , the elasticity of the use of the terms 'Arab' / 'Arabs' and 'Arabia' must be acknowledged as terms, sometimes inclusive and sometimes exclusive, of ‘Nabatu' / ‘Nabataean' / ‘Nabataene'.

The "confusion" to which Richardson refers is not that Josephus misidentifies the Nabateans or Syllaeus. Richardson clearly believes that the passage is dealing with (once again folks): THE NABATEAN WAR (12-9 BCE).

Grant, Hammond, Richardson, and the website devoted to Nabatean history all recognize that this was a military action by Herod against the Nabateans.

How can this website confirm that it is "not a war at all" when the first sentence of the paragraph describes this as: In 9 BC a war broke out between Herod and the Nabataeans. You are lowering yourself to unbecoming semantics. I never claimed it was a big war or a little war. I just quoted a source describing it as a war. A source which is in good company because Richardon describes it as a war, Grant describes it as a war, and the website devoted to Nabatean history describes it as a war. Oh yeah, and it is described as such by one of your online sources: Upon his return to Rome, Herod goes to war with the Arabs, who are under the leadership of Syllaeus. <a href="http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/InTest/Hist7.htm" target="_blank">http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/InTest/Hist7.htm</a> (funny how I'm somehow "stuck" with my sources -- even when you blatantly misreprsent them -- but you run for the hills away from your own).

Actually, I have. Hammond admits they were. Richardson affirms they were. Grant affirms they were. A website devoted entirely to Nabatean history affirms they were. Witherington affirms they were.

You are clinging to the mistaken impression that Hammond states that every classical reference to Arabs was not to the Nabateans. He expressly disavows that idea: Finally, the elasticity of the use of the terms 'Arab' / 'Arabs' and 'Arabia' must be acknowledged as terms, sometimes inclusive and sometimes exclusive, of ‘Nabatu' / ‘Nabataean' / ‘Nabataene'.

And as I discussed above, Hammond explicitly confirms that the passages at issue are really dealing with the Nabateans.

It is evidence that this is considered by leading historians of the period to be 1) a war, and 2) with the Nabateans.

You misrepresented Hammond. He affirms that the actions at issue was against the Nabateans.

Actually, yes, Grant explicitly affirms this.

Michael Grant, Herod the Great, at 190.

Note again that Syllaeus, as stated by Hammond, was involved in the Nabatean government and even became a contender for its throne.

Actually, Richardson, Hammond, Grant, Witherington, the website devoted entirely to Nabatean history, and I all agree that these were Nabateans and we trump you.

Actually, Richardson, Hammond, Grant, Witherington, the website devoted entirely to Nabatean history, and I all trump you.

Wait. Let's revisit the first sentence in the paragraph from this source: "In 9 BC a war broke out between Herod and the Nabataeans." You are lowering yourself to unbecoming semantics. I never claimed it was a big war or a little war. I just quoted a source describing it as a war. A source which is in good company because Richardon describes it as a war, Grant describes it as a war, and the website devoted to Nabatean history describes it as a war. Oh yeah, and it is described as such by one of your online sources: Upon his return to Rome, Herod goes to war with the Arabs, who are under the leadership of Syllaeus. <a href="http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/InTest/Hist7.htm" target="_blank">http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/InTest/Hist7.htm</a>

This one paragraph condenses down most of your mistakes into one, easy to manage package.

1. I have not "overblown" the scope of this military conflict at all. I never said whether it was a big war or a little war. I merely cited a respected New Testament scholar on the issue, and he described it as a war. Also, classical historians Grant and Richardson describe it as a war. And a website devoted entirely to Nabatean history describes it as a war. Oh yeah, and it is described as such by one of your online sources: Upon his return to Rome, Herod goes to war with the Arabs, who are under the leadership of Syllaeus. <a href="http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/InTest/Hist7.htm" target="_blank">http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/InTest/Hist7.htm</a>

2. Grant and Richardson are not just specialists in Herod, but respected historians. They are confirmed by Hammond, the website devoted entirely to Nabatean history, and even your own website (now described as a "genera" introduction to the New Testament).

3. I have not misidentified the target. That the target was the Nabateans is confirmed by Grant, Richardson, Hammond, and a website devoted entirely to Nabatean history. You have abused and distorted Hammond. He specifically affirms that the Josephus passages at issue are dealing with the Nabateans.

Is it your mission in life to simply waste my time? Apparently it is. There is no dispute by any of the sources (yours or mine) that Herod was tragetting the Nabateans and that his actions got him in trouble with Augustus. Whether you like to call it a "war" or not is irrelevant. Grant, Richardson, the Nabatean history website, your own sourced website, and respected N.T. scholar Witherington all use that term to describe Herod's taking troops, crossing the border into a nother country, capturing a fortified city, and then engaging in another battle with a Nabatean force sent to stop him. In that battle, the relative of an important member of the Nebatean government is killed.

Of course, another reason it is called a "war" is probably because it did not just include this one invasion/incursion. This was the culmination of a Jewish military campaign against rebels operating in their own territory but that were supported and eventually sheltered by the Nabateans.

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

Again, this is inaccurate. While no doubt many who hated Herod made disparaging comments about his ethnicity, you are overstating the case by implying he could not be seen as a Jew because of it.

John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. I, at 242.

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Benjamin Franklin

Hi Layman

Will you be responding to anything that I posted ?


BF

Layman

Maybe, I've been playing catchup with Carrier and Sauron. And I'm still waiting to see whether Sauron will finally admit error on the Nabetean issue.

And by "anything" you posted I guess you mean 1) the 74 CE census, and 2) Josephus' return to Bethlehem?

Benjamin Franklin

Yap. It is okay, you can take your time. I just wanted to know whether you would reply so I can decide whether I wanted to check the thread again.

BF

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]</p>

Layman

Here's a down-payment on the Mary/Joseph travelling to Bethlehem issue.

John Nolland, World Biblical Commentary, Luke 1-9:20, at 101.

Even Raymond Brown sees this as a very real possibility. The Birth of the Messiah, at 549.

Benjamin Franklin

Hi Layman

I am sorry. I made a mistake. I look over my notes again, Joseph/Mary travelling to Bethlem is not a problem at all. My objection lie somewhere else. When I think of of how to phrase my objection, I will post again.

BF

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]</p>

Layman

No problem.

It appears that due to Sauron's absence we'll have time to explore other aspects of this.