Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket case

[Bernard Muller]

Of course, I do not have all the evidence to make my case certain. My goal has always been to show that "In Damascus the ethnarch of Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take me" is plausible as being written by Paul around 55 CE, and should not be dismissed as a later interpolation.

1. Is there any evidence that the Nabateans ruled Damascus. No. You originally said 'why not?'

I never said Nabateans under Aretas IV ruled Damascus. You are confusing me with TedM.

2. Is there any evidence that ethnarchs were associated with or appointed by a foreign king while the Romans ruled a city? No. You say 'why not?'

I have evidence that Agrippa II named high priests while Romans ruled Jerusalem. I know, that's not it, but similar situation.

3. Is there any evidence that the ethnarch of the Jewish community at Alexandria appointed by King Agrippa? No. You say 'why not?'

No evidence here. But the Jewish ethnarchs and the Nabatean ethnarch might not be subject to the same process for nomination.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

This makes a case for the separatist nature of the Jews in the lands of Egypt and Cyrene and it is on account of this that the Jews were given a "governor" (ethnarch, according to Josephus). There is no reason to think that such a position, if it were indeed called an "ethnarch", was anything other than a special concession for the Jews in Egypt and Cyrene.

But later, Claudius, at the beginning of his reign, reinstated the practice of Jewish ethnarchs, not only in Alexandria, but also in other cities with diaspora Jews:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... tion%3D278
and
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... tion%3D286
Cordially, Bernard

[Solo]

[The legend in 2 Corinthians is implausible. Really, the legends in apocryphal sources like the Acts of Paul and Thecla are a bit more plausible; at least some of these stories avoid gaffes like this against our knowledge of the political situation in the first century.

FWIW, I have long considered 2 Cor 31:33 an interpolation (likely an attempt to harmonize Paul's letter with Acts). William O. Walker treats the three verses as such. The passage closes at 11:30 with a summary of Paul's boasts as those of his weakness. Note that there are no specific incidents mentioned in the inventory of dissing, beatings, mishaps, bad weather and other inconveniences that Paul suffered for Christ. Verses 31-33 look very much like something added later, and starts with the suspicious "I do not lie" which logically ties with the two verses following, not the statements preceding. All verses where Paul takes an oath of this kind, his authorship has been either repudiated or questioned (Gal 1:20, Rom 9:1, 1 Ti 2:7). The statements apparently come from a period when Paul's integrity, stature and role were being questioned in the later church, and this form of assuring the reader that Paul was truly member of the Jerusalem-based assembly and one in good standing was to defend him from accusations of heresy and mendacity.

Best,
Jiri

[spin]

This makes a case for the separatist nature of the Jews in the lands of Egypt and Cyrene and it is on account of this that the Jews were given a "governor" (ethnarch, according to Josephus). There is no reason to think that such a position, if it were indeed called an "ethnarch", was anything other than a special concession for the Jews in Egypt and Cyrene.

But later, Claudius, at the beginning of his reign, reinstated the practice of Jewish ethnarchs, not only in Alexandria, but also in other cities with diaspora Jews:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... tion%3D278
and
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... tion%3D286

So, still no reason to think that this apparently unique role, called by Josephus "ethnarch"--apparently a special use of the word--, had any scope outside its application to the Jews. Certainly nothing approaching the notion of a foreign dignitary in another realm, such as implied with the ethnarch of Aretas in Damascus.

[Bernard Muller]

2 Cor 31:33 an interpolation (likely an attempt to harmonize Paul's letter with Acts)

If that would be the case, why did the interpolator substitute Jews for ethnarch of Aretas? Jews, being after Paul, makes sense. Why change that to ethnarch of Aretas the king? Why change from killing Paul to seizing Paul (the later makes more sense, when followed by a charge & delivery to the authorities for trial. The former is criminal and the assassins liable of execution)?
BTW, Jews were not controlling the city, nor had a garrison. However "Luke" had no problem having them keep close watch on the city gates in order to get to Paul.
Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

2 Cor 31:33 an interpolation (likely an attempt to harmonize Paul's letter with Acts)

If that would be the case, why did the interpolator substitute Jews for ethnarch of Aretas? Jews, being after Paul, makes sense. Why change that to ethnarch of Aretas the king? Why change from killing Paul to seizing Paul (the later makes more sense, when followed by a charge & delivery to the authorities for trial. The former is criminal and the assassins liable of execution)?
BTW, Jews were not controlling the city, nor had a garrison. However "Luke" had no problem to have them keep close watch on the city gates in order to get to Paul.

The problem with 2 Cor 11:32 is that it mentions Aretas at all. We know for certain only once that Nabataea had control over Damascus and that was under Aretas III. It would be logical to think of Aretas III when we talk of a functionary of Aretas there. The only reason why anyone would ever think of Aretas IV is because it would make 2 Cor 11:32 anachronistic if it were the otherwise obvious Aretas III. Hence all the machinations to invent a scenario to make 2 Cor 11:32 work.

I'm not arguing for an interpolation--I haven't thought about it before that I can recall--, but it is easy enough for someone to confuse the Aretas who had control of Damascus with the last Aretas and think of the likelihood that it was Aretas's man, who had some power there, rather than the less likely Jews.

[stephan happy huller]

One needn't explain how a mistake arose in order to call out when they occur. The very fact 'Paul' makes only passing reference to the rule of Nabateans is suspicious too. His audience allegedly is the Corinthian community. Would it be expected that a church made up of mostly ignorant and illiterate slaves (i.e. the bulk of the Christian community) would know who Aretas and the details of the incident only superficially referenced? No of course not. The assumption on the part of the editor is that Acts is being referenced.

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,
If you think 2 Cor 11:32 is not an interpolation, but the Aretas in question being Aretas III, then that would put Paul's apostolic episode way earlier (about by one century). Before I go further, I have to ask you: Is it what you think? If not clarify.
Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Stephan,
Yes most early Christians were illiterate with plenty of ignorance (but they did not have to be slaves for that). However, there were some educated people among them who could be asked about that Aretas.
Cordially, Bernard

[stephan happy huller]

Really? And a one liner in the middle of a letter with no background explanation would be enough for people living in Corinth? It's not more likely a reflection that the audience was using a canon with Acts already in it? Why do you insist on reinforcing the more implausible explanation of this stupid narrative?

We have choice (a) Acts and this Letter to the Corinthians were meant to be read together (in the manner of Acts retelling of the clash between Peter and Paul in Galatians)
and (b) Paul just threw in a reference to a complicated - if not implausible - historical incident which was 'well known' to everyone in the Empire but somehow is not reflected in coins or any historian from the ancient period.