This appears to be a facetitious response, but do you have problems with people using coherent methodology? Would you generalize without knowing that what you generalize from is not a special case?spin: And do you have any literature about the function or selection of an ethnarch beside those in descriptions relating to the Jews?
TedM: Were the Jews different in some way to the Romans than others such that Rome would have allowed an 'ethnarch' for them but not the others? What difference would it make if they are Jews or not? Wouldn't Nabataean control/domination of Damascus be similar to a high Jewish population elsewhere?
spin:One generalizes when one knows it is appropriate to do so.
TedM: It must be difficult for you sometimes..
Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket case
Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c
to jiri,
Cordially, Bernard
That's what I meant to say. I should have checked on how to use "substitute". Excuse my French, but you are right.Actually, the interpolator would be substituting the ethnarch of Aretas for the Jews, not the other way around.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
-
- Posts: 2817
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am
Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c
If the passages in Acts and 2 Corinthians show literary dependence (one is paraphrasing the other) then there are several reasons for thinking that Acts is paraphrasing 2 Corinthians rather than vice versa.
1/ SARGANH in 2 Corinthians is a rare word SPURIS in Acts a common word. It is more likely that a rare word would be replaced by a common one than the other way round.
2/ In 2 Corinthians Paul narrowly escapes arrest. In Acts Paul narrowly escapes death. It is more likely that a retelling would increase Paul's danger than that it would reduce it.
3/ The author of Acts shows no interest in Paul''s relations with Arabia but emphasizes Paul's conflicts with his fellow Jews. It is plausible that Acts would replace a threat from the ethnatch of Aretas (a threat whose context was probably unclear to the author of Acts) with a threat from the Jews. It is unlikely that an interpolator in 2 Corinthians would invent a puzzling reference to a Nabatean ethnarch.
Andrew Criddle
1/ SARGANH in 2 Corinthians is a rare word SPURIS in Acts a common word. It is more likely that a rare word would be replaced by a common one than the other way round.
2/ In 2 Corinthians Paul narrowly escapes arrest. In Acts Paul narrowly escapes death. It is more likely that a retelling would increase Paul's danger than that it would reduce it.
3/ The author of Acts shows no interest in Paul''s relations with Arabia but emphasizes Paul's conflicts with his fellow Jews. It is plausible that Acts would replace a threat from the ethnatch of Aretas (a threat whose context was probably unclear to the author of Acts) with a threat from the Jews. It is unlikely that an interpolator in 2 Corinthians would invent a puzzling reference to a Nabatean ethnarch.
Andrew Criddle
- stephan happy huller
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
- Contact:
Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c
Very smart post. Andrew. I always said I like what you post because even though I often don't agree with your assumptions, your point of view is unexpected, well researched, well thought out and never 'off the shelf.' Some very interesting and original observations. You always make me re-think my position ... whatever that is.
Everyone loves the happy times
Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c
If there is no reason to assume it is a 'special case', then I have no problem with generalizing. I would say it is as acceptable to do so as it is to not do so. While my response was somewhat sarcastic, to the extent that you really do have this mindset, it is sincere. It has to be very difficult not being able to make any reasonable assumptions without absolute proof. Difficult in the sense of 'frustrating'.spin wrote:This appears to be a facetitious response, but do you have problems with people using coherent methodology? Would you generalize without knowing that what you generalize from is not a special case?spin: And do you have any literature about the function or selection of an ethnarch beside those in descriptions relating to the Jews?
TedM: Were the Jews different in some way to the Romans than others such that Rome would have allowed an 'ethnarch' for them but not the others? What difference would it make if they are Jews or not? Wouldn't Nabataean control/domination of Damascus be similar to a high Jewish population elsewhere?
spin:One generalizes when one knows it is appropriate to do so.
TedM: It must be difficult for you sometimes..
Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c
So now the author of 2 Corinthians 11:32 used the wrong term for the commander in charge of a Nabatean city? And how exactly do you know this? Yes, under Aretas a city military commander would likely have been termed a στρατηγος (strategos).
The term στρατηγος is well attested in the Greek translations of old testament books (1 Sam; 1 & 2 Chr; 1 Esdras; Neh; Est; Jdt; Job; Jer; Eze; Dan; Luk (2x); and Acts (8x)), and 1-4 Macc; yet the author of 2 Cor 11:32 was too stupid to recognize this and ignorantly used the term for a kind of semi-autonomous ethnic ruling figure attested by Josephus, Philo, Strabo and Lucian [Lucian (Macrobioi, xvii.) speaks of an ethnarch Asandros made king of the Bosphorus by Augustus]?
Then again, maybe the author of 2 Cor 11:32 simply meant what he said, and not what he did not.
DCH
The term στρατηγος is well attested in the Greek translations of old testament books (1 Sam; 1 & 2 Chr; 1 Esdras; Neh; Est; Jdt; Job; Jer; Eze; Dan; Luk (2x); and Acts (8x)), and 1-4 Macc; yet the author of 2 Cor 11:32 was too stupid to recognize this and ignorantly used the term for a kind of semi-autonomous ethnic ruling figure attested by Josephus, Philo, Strabo and Lucian [Lucian (Macrobioi, xvii.) speaks of an ethnarch Asandros made king of the Bosphorus by Augustus]?
Then again, maybe the author of 2 Cor 11:32 simply meant what he said, and not what he did not.
DCH
spin wrote:Obviously, Aretas wasn't in Damascus. But then, the word for governor in such a case is strategos (στρατηγος).
One generalizes when one knows it is appropriate to do so.
- stephan happy huller
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
- Contact:
Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c
Give me a break. This passage is obviously an interruption of the original train of thought - i.e. that Paul was greater than Peter and the rest of the apostles. The idea shows up as a heretical obsession in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Epiphanius and Eznik. Funny how all this biographical information 'just happens to appear' in between (a) I am better than the apostles because ... and (b) I went to Paradise or WhateverTF the now garbled passage is saying. I'd argue the most obvious example of editorial smokescreen rewriting in the history of literature.
You think this piss is champagne? Give me a break.I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool. But if you do, then tolerate me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting. 17 In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool. 18 Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. 19 You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! 20 In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face. 21 To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that! Whatever anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. 22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. 23 Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more.
Everyone loves the happy times
Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl
You've been asked several times to explain the following assertions:
As I know for a fact that you cannot produce an original source stating that Damascus was ever a possession of either Zenodorus or Philip, are you seriously going to justify this by a general appeal to geography?spin Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:59 am wrote:Damascus was in the tetrarchy of Philip which Caligula gave to Agrippa I.
spin Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:29 pm wrote:
Umm, it [Damascus] was, as part of Philip's territory, a direct Roman possession after the death of Philip and before Caligula gave it to Agrippa I.
DCHspin Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:05 am wrote:The territory of Zenodorus in Trachonitis went to Herod and then to Philip. You connect the dots: Petra, Bostra, Trachonitis, Damascus.
Or take it from Philip K. Hitti (History of Syria Including Lebanon and Palestine, Gorgias Press, 2002, 289)A great longitudinal road crossed it, the Via Maris of the Romans, the King's Highway of the Bible. This road ran from Damascus through Hawran to Gilead, Moab and on southward to join the Arabian caravan route. Going back to the late second millennium B.C. this principal road of Transjordan was paved by Trajan....And of course Hawran is Philip's Auranitis.
- JoeWallack
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
- Contact:
Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c
JW:
To the Lab:
2 Corinthians 11:32
Part of Bernard's defense is his claim that the verse does not indicate that Aretas was King of Damascus at the time of the incident described. Waiting to hear if Bernard thinks it likely Aretas was not King of Damascus per this verse or just possible.
Based on the above I think it likely that the offending verse does indicate that Aretas was King of Damascus at the time of the incident:
1) Natural reading. The above mentions one city, Damascus, and one King, Aretas. Therefore, the natural understanding is that it means that Aretas was King of Damascus. If we had no other external information, this would be the understanding. The only reason to avoid this understanding is because it would indicate error on the part of the author.
2) Definite article. "King" has the definite article before it. The Greek definite article has a much more complicated range of meaning dependent on modification and surroundings than the English definite article (consistent translation of "the" in English is a matter of convenience and not grammar). I believe though that in the genitive it is more likely to function as it would in English (another problem though is that as Scarface's King said to him, "of course not everyone always follows the rules"). Aretas is not any King here but the King of Damascus. As always, where the hell is Professor Gibson when you really need him.
3) "Guarding the city" indicates total or at least major control of access. Damascus probably had seven gates at the time. Again, this indicates the authority of the King of the city. Different population groups likely used different gates to some extent. If Aretas was not the King of Damascus it's unlikely the real King would allow sufficient force present under a foreigner to control all seven gates.
Look at SBL here:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3 ... 2855600093
for the type of crap you find on the subject from Christian Bible scholars. The author assumes that there was a King Aretas at the time after Paul in Damascus because 2 Corinthians 11:32 says so. His only interest in sifting through the crap that preceded him is to make a conclusion as to the date of 2 Corinthians 11:32.
Let's face it gals, if someone put together an article on the subject based only on what is in this Thread, it would immediately be the best article on the subject. Not because this Thread is so good, but because the traditional articles are so bad.
Joseph
ErrancyWiki
To the Lab:
2 Corinthians 11:32
Strong's----Transliteration- Greek------English---- Morphology
1722 [e]--- en-----------------ἐν-----------In----------Prep
1154 [e]--- Damaskō-- -------Δαμασκῷ--Damascus-N-DFS
3588 [e]--- ho-----------------ὁ-----------the----------Art-NMS
1481 [e]--- ethnarchēs------ ἐθνάρχης--governor-- N-NMS
702 [e]---- Hareta----------- Ἁρέτα*-----under Aretas--N-GMS
3588 [e]--- tou---------------τοῦ----------under the Art-GMS
935 [e]----basileōs----------βασιλέως-- king-------N-GMS
5432 [e]--- ephrourei-------ἐφρούρει---was guarding -V-IIA-3S
3588 [e]--- tēn---------------τὴν----------the-------Art-AFS
4172 [e]--- polin-------------πόλιν-------city-------N-AFS
1153 [e]--- Damaskēnōn----Δαμασκηνῶν-of the Damascenes--Adj-GMP
4084 [e]--- piasai------------πιάσαι------to seize--V-ANA
1473 [e]--- me----------------με---------- me--------PPro-A1S
Part of Bernard's defense is his claim that the verse does not indicate that Aretas was King of Damascus at the time of the incident described. Waiting to hear if Bernard thinks it likely Aretas was not King of Damascus per this verse or just possible.
Based on the above I think it likely that the offending verse does indicate that Aretas was King of Damascus at the time of the incident:
1) Natural reading. The above mentions one city, Damascus, and one King, Aretas. Therefore, the natural understanding is that it means that Aretas was King of Damascus. If we had no other external information, this would be the understanding. The only reason to avoid this understanding is because it would indicate error on the part of the author.
2) Definite article. "King" has the definite article before it. The Greek definite article has a much more complicated range of meaning dependent on modification and surroundings than the English definite article (consistent translation of "the" in English is a matter of convenience and not grammar). I believe though that in the genitive it is more likely to function as it would in English (another problem though is that as Scarface's King said to him, "of course not everyone always follows the rules"). Aretas is not any King here but the King of Damascus. As always, where the hell is Professor Gibson when you really need him.
3) "Guarding the city" indicates total or at least major control of access. Damascus probably had seven gates at the time. Again, this indicates the authority of the King of the city. Different population groups likely used different gates to some extent. If Aretas was not the King of Damascus it's unlikely the real King would allow sufficient force present under a foreigner to control all seven gates.
Look at SBL here:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3 ... 2855600093
for the type of crap you find on the subject from Christian Bible scholars. The author assumes that there was a King Aretas at the time after Paul in Damascus because 2 Corinthians 11:32 says so. His only interest in sifting through the crap that preceded him is to make a conclusion as to the date of 2 Corinthians 11:32.
Let's face it gals, if someone put together an article on the subject based only on what is in this Thread, it would immediately be the best article on the subject. Not because this Thread is so good, but because the traditional articles are so bad.
Joseph
ErrancyWiki
Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c
As all our substantive information about ethnarchs seems to relate to the Jews and the descriptions, if you read them, seem to make the situation of Jews out to be a special case, generalization from the Jewish information, as I implied, inappropriate.TedM wrote:If there is no reason to assume it is a 'special case', then I have no problem with generalizing. I would say it is as acceptable to do so as it is to not do so. While my response was somewhat sarcastic, to the extent that you really do have this mindset, it is sincere. It has to be very difficult not being able to make any reasonable assumptions without absolute proof. Difficult in the sense of 'frustrating'.spin wrote:This appears to be a facetitious response, but do you have problems with people using coherent methodology? Would you generalize without knowing that what you generalize from is not a special case?spin: And do you have any literature about the function or selection of an ethnarch beside those in descriptions relating to the Jews?
TedM: Were the Jews different in some way to the Romans than others such that Rome would have allowed an 'ethnarch' for them but not the others? What difference would it make if they are Jews or not? Wouldn't Nabataean control/domination of Damascus be similar to a high Jewish population elsewhere?
spin:One generalizes when one knows it is appropriate to do so.
TedM: It must be difficult for you sometimes..
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes