Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket case

[stephan happy huller]

I am trying to understand your position. Am I correct in assuming that you hold:

1. that there were many ethnarchs in the Empire associated with or appointed by client kings or kings - i.e. that the Alexandrian ethnarch of the Jewish community was associated with King Agrippa in the manner that the ethnarch of Damascus is alleged to have been associated with Aretas or is this just some rhetorical effort to bolster the credibility of this passage?
2. Paul really did claim to have escaped from Damascus by means of a basket?
3. that Acts and 2 Corinthians are describing the same incident?

[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.

I don't really know what to think of the verse. History points directly to Aretas III. All the apologetic--including yours--is pure wish fulfillment of the kind, "now how can we make this work?" while looking at a square-wheeled tricycle. I find little hope of sense pursuing an unfalsifiable hypothesis based on Aretas IV gaining a foothold of any sort in Damascus. While Aretas III had the extension of power, the lack of force majeur, and the invitation to be in Damascus, Aretas IV was stuck down in Petra, blocked by the territories of Herod Antipas and Philip, on the outside of the Roman empire, supposedly looking in at Damascus. Conditions had changed drastically between the two Nabataean kings. You have no reason to be flogging the nonsense you are trying to defend. You're not wedded to it.

There is another example of this invention of another opportunity because the evidence points to a different time: Lk 3:1's Lysanias, ruler of Abilene, who died half a century before the time frame of Tiberius's year 15. What do they do in this case? Invent another Lysanias, by fiddling the evidence for the one they know about, just like they invent a second connection between an Aretas and Damascus.

[Bernard Muller]

historical incident which was 'well known' to everyone in the Empire

What historical incident are you referring to?
Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

1. that there were many ethnarchs in the Empire associated with or appointed by client kings or kings - i.e. that the Alexandrian ethnarch of the Jewish community was associated with King Agrippa in the manner that the ethnarch of Damascus is alleged to have been associated with Aretas or is this just some rhetorical effort to bolster the credibility of this passage?

The Jewish ethnarchs (in Alexandria and diaspora cities) may not have been nominated by Jewish kings. The Damascus ethnarch had some connection with Aretas IV, according to 2 Cor 11:32.

2. Paul really did claim to have escaped from Damascus by means of a basket?

YES

3. that Acts and 2 Corinthians are describing the same incident?

Very likely. But "Luke" always distorted and embellished the common events (described in Acts and the Paulines, such as the meetings in Jerusalem with the "Church"). It is also my view that "Luke" (when writing Acts) did not know about the main Pauline epistles and had his/her own sources, many of them, directly or indirectly, from companions of Paul. Of course "Luke" had his/her own agenda, and besides the embellishments, there were added fiction & distortions, change in the sequencing of events, etc ...
Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Aretas IV was stuck down in Petra, blocked by the territories of Herod Antipas and Philip

Not so. Aretas IV territories extended North to Bosra, a very important Nabatean city. These territories were to the East of Herod Antipas and Philip kingdoms. There are about only 80 kilometers between Bosra and Damascus (to the North), as the crow flies.

I know "Luke" made plenty of historical mistakes. Nothing new for me.

Cordially, Bernard

[andrewcriddle]

On the general issue of the term ethnarch we do have other though later examples of its use for an Arab leader. Philostorgius

But Constantius, wishing to array the embassy with peculiar splendour, put on board of their ships two hundred well-bred horses from Cappadocia, and sent with them many other gifts, with the double view of making an imposing show and of conciliating the feelings of the people. Accordingly, Theophilus, on his arrival among the Sabaeans, endeavoured to persuade the ruler of the tribe to become a Christian, and to give over the deceits of heathenism.

Where ruler of the tribe translates ethnarch

I don't thimk it should be regarded as a specifically Jewish title or one largely confined to Egypt.

Andrew Criddle

[stephan happy huller]

The Damascus ethnarch had some connection with Aretas IV, according to 2 Cor 11:32.

But you acknowledge then that beyond the New Testament there is no evidence to support the underlying assertion that ethnarchs were associated with or appointed by kings (i.e. either of the 'client' = Agrippa or 'foreign' = Aretas variety)? I see there are two problems with the assertion in 2 Corinthians:

1. no evidence for Aretas IV controlling Damascus
2. no evidence for an "ethnarch of the king so-and-so" type

[spin]

1. that there were many ethnarchs in the Empire associated with or appointed by client kings or kings - i.e. that the Alexandrian ethnarch of the Jewish community was associated with King Agrippa in the manner that the ethnarch of Damascus is alleged to have been associated with Aretas or is this just some rhetorical effort to bolster the credibility of this passage?

The Jewish ethnarchs (in Alexandria and diaspora cities) may not have been nominated by Jewish kings. The Damascus ethnarch had some connection with Aretas IV, according to 2 Cor 11:32.

2 Cor 11:32 simply doesn't say any such thing. The only people who talk about Aretas IV are modern day pundits who make things up.

2. Paul really did claim to have escaped from Damascus by means of a basket?

YES

3. that Acts and 2 Corinthians are describing the same incident?

Very likely. But "Luke" always distorted and embellished the common events (described in Acts and the Paulines, such as the meetings in Jerusalem with the "Church"). It is also my view that "Luke" (when writing Acts) did not know about the main Pauline epistles and had his/her own sources, many of them, directly or indirectly, from companions of Paul. Of course "Luke" had his/her own agenda, and besides the embellishments, there were added fiction & distortions, change in the sequencing of events, etc ...
Cordially, Bernard

[stephan happy huller]

An online sampling of Kasher's nationalistic nonsense claiming that Idumaeans and Nabateans were allies of the Jews http://books.google.com/books?id=gw5Bsw ... 22&f=false

[TedM]

Really? And a one liner in the middle of a letter with no background explanation would be enough for people living in Corinth?

Why do you think they had to know who king Aretas was for Paul to mention it? You are applying motives to Paul that weren't necessary. It may be that Paul was simply telling them what happened. It may be that Paul was highlighting the fact that A king, ANY king was concerned enough to seek him out (part of the 'boasting'). Why must we consider the education level of the Corinthians in order to establish the likelihood of such brief mention, with no further clarification from Paul?

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.

Again, it needn't have been 'well known' to make sense of it from Paul's perspective. In any case, if it was historical, what are the odds that it would have been reflected on coins or in mentions by historians of the ancient period, Stephan? Can you put a mathematical probability on it? Doesn't the issue of HOW LONG he ruled that area have some bearing on the likelihood of it being reflected, or are you claiming that every single historical incident was recorded on coins and by the historical records that have been preserved?