Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket case

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

You don't need to mention it after having chosen your conjecture of a representative of Aretas IV who was not in control of Damascus laying in wait for Paul at a few gates

Who said the ethnarch personally would have to lay in waiting at the city gates of Damascus?

You are supposed to keep your hypotheses as simple as possible.

Who decided on that except yourself?

Damascus was part of the territory of Philip,

Do you have evidence for that?

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,
I found that book from Aryeh Kasher (died 2011), a Jewish scholar, who exposed the same idea as I about that ethnarch.
To find the passage in the book, use Google to search on "dispute Sidon Damascus" and then click on "Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel ..." which should be on the very top of the list.
Apparently, prior to Caligula, Damascus was minting Roman coins with image of the Roman emperor. But during Caligula's reign, Damascus was back at minting regular autonomic municipal coins, including the traditional use of the Seleucid numbering of years, likely to show some independence from Rome. And no Agrippa I in sight!

Cordially, Bernard

[stephan happy huller]

I have the coins of ALL or at least most of the provincial regions in the Roman Empire as developed by Andrew Burnett of the British Museum and I can say that your argument Bernard doesn't hold water. There are all kinds of coins from all kinds of periods. The numismatic evidence does not support the idea that Aretas controlled Damascus. Take the example of coins of Agrippa for instance. There are some coins which make reference to the Emperor others with simple images and reference to the name Agrippa. In other words there is great variety and none of the coins in Damascus support the contention that Damascus was ever ruled by Aretas in the first century CE.

As to why Kasher decided to incorporate the evidence of the NT. Scholars have to decide what to do with all the garbage evidence from the Catholic NT. If you accept the testimony you immediately have to come up with explanations for your decision in the same manner as if you reject the evidence. The bottom line is that if a Jewish scholar rejects the NT he immediately opens himself up to the charge of anti-Christian bias. In other words, it is a sign of 'openness' and 'ecumenism' for a Jew to try to incorporate the bullshit from the NT canon in the same way that Christian scholars have to pretend that Judaism and Christian aren't fundamentally incompatible with one another.

It is difficult for a Jewish scholar to openly argue that the New Testament is full of garbage. Similarly there are no Christian scholars who defend the tradition understandign of the Jews as agents of the Devil who were forced to wander the earth for their 'crime' of killing Christ. These views could be supported by Jews and Christians based on traditional views within traditional religious schools of thought yet in a pluralistic cosmopolitan culture such as ours those voices are drowned out by those seeking 'cooperation' and 'goodwill.'

[Bernard Muller]

The numismatic evidence does not support the idea that Aretas controlled Damascus.

I never defended the idea that Aretas IV controlled Damascus. The same goes for Aryeh Kasher.
Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

to spin,

You don't need to mention it after having chosen your conjecture of a representative of Aretas IV who was not in control of Damascus laying in wait for Paul at a few gates

Who said the ethnarch personally would have to lay in waiting at the city gates of Damascus?

"Personally" is your addition. And lying in wait does not reflect φρουρεω, only your theory.

You are defending a notion of ethnarch only seen in a garbled report by Josephus that conflicts with Philo. You imagine this foreign ethnarch ordering a clandestine kidnapping in Roman territory.

You are supposed to keep your hypotheses as simple as possible.

Who decided on that except yourself?

William of Occam.

Damascus was part of the territory of Philip,

Do you have evidence for that?

No, checking my sources.

I found that book from Aryeh Kasher (died 2011), a Jewish scholar, who exposed the same idea as I about that ethnarch.
To find the passage in the book, use Google to search on "dispute Sidon Damascus" and then click on "Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel ..." which should be on the very top of the list.
Apparently, prior to Caligula, Damascus was minting Roman coins with image of the Roman emperor. But during Caligula's reign, Damascus was back at minting regular autonomic municipal coins, including the traditional use of the Seleucid numbering of years, likely to show some independence from Rome. And no Agrippa I in sight!

Seleucid numbering of years "likely to show some independence from Rome"? With the heads of Augustus or Tiberius? Highly unlikely.

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

"Personally" is your addition. And lying in wait does not reflect φρουρεω, only your theory.

You are defending a notion of ethnarch only seen in a garbled report by Josephus that conflicts with Philo. You imagine this foreign ethnarch ordering a clandestine kidnapping in Roman territory.

I already showed that Josephus' account does not have to conflict with Philo's.
I did not initiate the ethnarch had to be personally lying in wait. You did, by "imagining" my conjecture "your conjecture of a representative of Aretas IV who was not in control of Damascus laying in wait for Paul at a few gates".
It did not have to be clandestine, and kidnapping. More like citizen arrest in our modern world. Is someone forbidden to make that kind of arrest outside his country?

I do not think William of Occam would require the writer had to state someone was in full control of a city, with a garrison, in order to have one individual being arrested.

Seleucid numbering of years "likely to show some independence from Rome"? With the heads of Augustus or Tiberius? Highly unlikely.

Where did you get the regular autonomic municipal coins, including the traditional use of the Seleucid numbering of years, had to have the heads of Augustus or Tiberius (or any other emperors) on them?
Before Caligula, Damascus minted coins had the heads of these emperors on them, but during Caligula's rule, that got changed to regular autonomic municipal coins, including the traditional use of the Seleucid numbering of years.

Cordially, Bernard

[stephan happy huller]

Before Caligula, Damascus minted coins had the heads of these emperors on them, but during Caligula's rule, that got changed to regular autonomic municipal coins, including the traditional use of the Seleucid numbering of years.

By these standards any city in the Empire at any time could be argued to have been occupied by a foreign power. History now becomes about as solid as a Nerf football.

[Bernard Muller]

By these standards any city in the Empire at any time could be argued to have been occupied by a foreign power.

I did not say, nor Kasher, that the change of coins during Caligula was because Damascus was occupied by a foreign power. But it suggests more autonomy from Rome (but still with Rome as the overlord).
Cordially, Bernard

[stephan happy huller]

I remember Kasher now. He's the Israeli who had a nationalistic agenda showing the Nabateans were close allies of the Jews. Thus, by implication, the Jews had control over a vast territory beyond the present borders of Israel. Nonsense

[arnoldo]

Damascus was part of the territory of Philip,

Do you have evidence for that?

Cordially, Bernard

Is this the same Philip that this source states died in 34 A.D?

With incredible timing, Philip the Tetrarch died in the winter of 33/34 AD, mere months after Jesus had died (and risen) and not long since the new cult had been run out of Jerusalem. From Nabatea, King Aretas - who had been raised by the generation of Arabs who’d lost so much land to the Herods - now began operations to reclaim those eastern territories.

As the Nabateans began marching north, Rome was otherwise occupied. Tiberius Caesar was retired on the Isle of Capri and his praetorian prefect Macro (Sejanus' replacement) was running the Empire. The Province of Syria had also gone through a decade of absentee rule by one Governor Lamia, who was followed by Governor Flaccus, who died in 33 (or 34) and who was not replaced until Governor Vitellius, who arrived in Sytria in the year 35. But Vitellius’ attention was immediately absorbed by conflicts in other areas.

Aretas took the advantage of the moment, pressed as far north as the Golan Heights, and captured Gamala – a city of Philip’s now being held by the army (!) of Herod Antipas

Paul's Arabia (or) Nabatea and the New Testament

If indeed Philip died in 34 A.D. then apparently his territory was added to the province of Syria by Tiberius at the same time Aretas was invading Philip's old territory.