Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket case

[Peter Kirby]

All the coins have Greek not Latin text.

This nineteenth century book was written in Latin (to reach an international scholarly audience).

It does not imply that the contents of the coin's text is Latin.

[Peter Kirby]

Damascus was the original capital of the region (before conquest by the Greeks moved it to Antioch), an important conquest of Nabatea under Aretas III, and the decisive conquest that gave control over Syria to the Romans when Pompey took the city in 63 BC. Damascus was later attacked by the Parthians, and the Romans defended it throughout the principate.

(Parenthesis: Aretas III did not conquer Damascus; the Damascenes invited him in to restore order in the chaos at the collapse of the Seleucid empire, AJ 13.392.)

Thanks for that.

[andrewcriddle]

FWIW the earliest reference to 2 Corinthians 11:32 is Peter I of Alexandria (c. 300 - 311 CE)

Epistula canonica (1)
Date: ca.300 - ca.311
Genre: -
Theme: Christian life
Clavis: 1639
Biblio:
ROUTH M.J., Reliquiae sacrae, 4, 2e éd., Oxonii 1846, 23-45.
9 (p.35, l.1 - >) BP2

Then Eusebius (c. 320 CE?):

Commentarii in Esaiam (1)
Date: ca.300 - ca.339
Genre: -
Theme: Faith and Christian Reflection
Clavis: 3468
Biblio:
ZIEGLER J., GCS (1975).
1 § 72 (p.113, l.32 - <) BP4
Demonstratio evangelica (1)
Date: ca.314 - ca.322
Genre: -
Theme: Apologetics
Clavis: 3487
Biblio:
HEIKEL I.A., GCS 23 (1913), 2-496.
7 1 § 49 (p.307, l.8 - <)

and then Athanasius:

Apologia de fuga sua (1)
Date: ca.357
Genre: -
Theme: Apologetics
Clavis: 2122
Biblio:
OPTIZ H.-G., Athanasius Werke, 2,1, Berlin - Leipzig 1935, 68-86.

No references before the fourth century

FWIW there is just enough of verse 32 surviving in P46 in Damascus to make it certain that the episode was originally there.
See P46

Andrew Criddle

[TedM]

Do they record the degree to which Syria was 'Roman' at this time? Or the degree to which Rome CARED about this territory? That's a lot of open ground out there...

Thanks Peter. I have to wonder how important the territory in which Damascus resided was to Rome? Do we have any evidence of its importance? Do we have evidence that Rome was particularly concerned about all of the attacks Aretas made on Herod?

Damascus was the original capital of the region (before conquest by the Greeks moved it to Antioch), an important conquest of Nabatea under Aretas III, and the decisive conquest that gave control over Syria to the Romans when Pompey took the city in 63 BC. Damascus was later attacked by the Parthians, and the Romans defended it throughout the principate.

Thanks. I see now the source of my confusion: I had read 63BC as 63AD, so it seemed plausible to me that if Damascus was under Nabataean ownership 'briefly' just before 63AD then why not some 25 years earlier too? My mistake. I apologize.

How many sources do we actually have for 1st century ownership in that region? Is it just a couple of references by Josephus?

And I continue to wonder what reason a forgerer would have to make up a story like this if it was so 'implausible'. Wouldn't a forgerer have been a lot more familiar with the political situation than we are today? And If he was so interested in providing a sense of 'historicity', why is this the only mention --and seemingly in passing--of any historical figure? These things for me are hard to reconcile and seem implausible.

That is not a good argument. A forger can't get things wrong? Then who can, indeed?

What we have here is a mistake by the author of 2 Corinthians. Trajan had annexed Nabatea in 106 AD. King Aretas, king of the Nabateans, had minted coins in Damascus. But this was in the first century BC. The sole mistake the author makes is to assume that Nabatea (a kingdom that doesn't exist after 106 AD) hadn't changed shape in the past two centuries and to believe that Aretas IV, the first century AD Nabatean king, held the city just as his predecessor did. The problem is that he didn't. We can perhaps forgive and understand the error, being written in an era before people could collate sources together as we can today in order to determine the truth of the matter.

I would call that a 'possible' scenario. But to claim 200-300 years of ignorance or lack of interest by all of the people who read the passage seems unfounded IMO.

[stephan happy huller]

What we have here is a mistake by the author of 2 Corinthians. Trajan had annexed Nabatea in 106 AD. King Aretas, king of the Nabateans, had minted coins in Damascus. But this was in the first century BC.

No, this was your mistake. You mistook AD for BC. I don't think that an ancient writer could have made this mistake so easily. It is much more likely that he was trying to create a scenario whereby the gospel message was 'causing' upheaval in the world by its very introduction. He struggled with the idea that after Jesus came into the world, the gospel disappeared and went underground having no outward effect on the world. He deliberately and consciously invented a scenario - built from the clues in Josephus - that the gospel was causing all sorts of 'signs' of the end - the end of social order etc. So Aretas seized Damascus for a brief period perhaps at the very same time the Jews were collaborating with him against the Roman Empire.

[Peter Kirby]

200-300 years of ignorance or lack of interest by all of the people who read the passage

Grasping at straws again, eh?

No... I'm not being fair? Either way, though, a conversation is boring which just weaves its way back to some "reason" for dismissing the answer provided by the evidence.

[Peter Kirby]

I don't think that an ancient writer could have made this mistake so easily.

Argument by "I don't think." Also known as argument from incredulity. Fallacy.

[stephan happy huller]

"I don't think" happens to be the starting point for academic thesis including the disproving of the authenticity of the Pastorals. At a discussion board it should be okay to say A doesn't match B. It isn't proved but these discussion groups are by their very nature the beginning of something not the last word.

[arnoldo]

This spread was faciliated by a pre-existing “King's Highway” which linked Damascus to Arabia. What impact were you refering to Aretas' "unsanctioned war against Herod Antipas" ?

The one involving a foreign power attacking a Roman client. Rome had a long history of dealing with foreign interference. With few exceptions the result was dire for the foreign power. The death of Tiberius meant a transition of power that was one of those junctures when strife can arise, so Vitellius going back to the seat of his regional power was necessary. The fall from grace by Herod Antipas would have made Rome less inclined to pursue Aretas, but the theory that they might sanction Aretas in Damascus is a joke. Damascus was not a part of Herod's territory and Aretas expanding his sphere of influence there would have been tantamount to suicide.

Both ancient and modern rulers have a tendency to take action "tantamount to suicide." From the Jews revolting against Roman rule to Saddam Hussein trying to expand his sphere of influence into Kuwait not so long ago. Why should Aretas be any different? Also, add the indifference that Vitellius had towards Herod Antipas and perhaps his superiors into the mix and Aretas not surprisingly takes full advantage of the complicated political situation. Additionally, Caligula may've had his reasons for turing a blind eye towards Aretas' misadventures considering how the Nabataeans helped his father, Germanicus. The following article available to read in full at JSTOR for free may be useful for anyone seeking to understand the politics involving Aretas, Antipas and Vitellius.

An Anchor for Pauline Chronology: Paul's Flight from "The Ethnarch of King Aretas" (2 Corinthians 11:32-33) Douglas A. Campbell Journal of Biblical LiteratureVol. 121, No. 2 (Summer, 2002)

[TedM]

What we have here is a mistake by the author of 2 Corinthians. Trajan had annexed Nabatea in 106 AD. King Aretas, king of the Nabateans, had minted coins in Damascus. But this was in the first century BC.

No, this was your mistake. You mistook AD for BC. I don't think that an ancient writer could have made this mistake so easily. It is much more likely that he was trying to create a scenario whereby the gospel message was 'causing' upheaval in the world by its very introduction. He struggled with the idea that after Jesus came into the world, the gospel disappeared and went underground having no outward effect on the world. He deliberately and consciously invented a scenario - built from the clues in Josephus - that the gospel was causing all sorts of 'signs' of the end - the end of social order etc. So Aretas seized Damascus for a brief period perhaps at the very same time the Jews were collaborating with him against the Roman Empire.

FIrst, the quote above was Peters, so I'm not sure what mistake you are talking about..In any case, the idea that the ancient writer was trying to show upheaval is so far-fetched to me. The context doesn't support it, and the rest of the book doesn't support it. The context is simply that of Paul's suffering for the faith. If the goal was to try to show upheaval by mentioning a king, why not play it up a lot more? It just doesn't hold water.