Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket case

[Bernard Muller]

Heavy handed manipulation of the facts based on the need to insert Aretas IV into the process in order to justify 2 Cor 11:32.

An embassador follows the same process: First selected by their government, then approved by the authorities of the country he/she will take office in. Anyway, I find logical that it would be an agreement between the king and local authorities about who would be the chief of the Nabataean colony in Damascus.

Damascus was a center of trade by caravans and immediately North of the territory held by the Nabataean Arabs. Furthermore, in the past, Damascus had been part of the Nabataean kingdom. Therefore the presence of a Nabataean minority in Damascus is plausible.

That's what I wrote in the blog post I asked people here to read. I may change the first sentence, saying Damascus was the next large city North to Nabataean controlled caravan routes.
Unfortunately, Nabataeans did not have a Josephus, so we will never know for sure, through text, where and if Nabataeans were inhabiting foreign cities in the southern Levant. Strabo said little about Damascus and, apparently, most of the Roman ruins of Damascus are five meters below the densely packed today's old city. Archaeology cannot help here either. However, from Strabo's Geography:

Above Massyas lies the Royal Valley, as it is called, and also the Damascene country, which is accorded exceptional praise. The city Damascus is also a noteworthy city, having been, I might almost say, even the most famous of the cities in that part of the world in the time of the Persian empire; and above it are situated two Trachones,65 as they are called. And then, towards the parts inhabited promiscuously by Arabians and Ituraeans, are mountains hard to pass, in which there are deep-mouthed caves, one of which can admit as many as four thousand people in times of incursions, such as are made against the Damasceni from many places. For the most part, indeed, the barbarians have been robbing the merchants from Arabia Felix, but this is less the case now that the band of robbers under Zenodorus has been broken up through the good government established by the Romans and through the security established by the Roman soldiers that are kept in Syria.

I do not think merchants from Arabia Felix were reaching the area of Damascus. Then, the Nabataeans had the monopoly of carrying goods of the South of Arabia to the Levant. So Strabo might be confused here. If it is the case, Nabataean caravans were reaching Damascus, therefore making a minority Nabataean population in Damascus even more plausible.

Cordially, Bernard

[andrewcriddle]

.......................................................
There is however another important point to be made here. It is worth to remind ourselves that Paul's letters do not - except in this instance - propagate the idea, common in the later Pastorals and the Acts that the person of Paul generated interest among high officials and rulers. I would offer that the idea that Paul was proselytizing to a wide audience (not just to small groups of the spiritually mature, those who would be saints, etc.) itself points to a legendary portrait of the apostle which is of a later patristic provenance.

Best,
Jiri

Hi Jiri

I'm not sure that attempting to arrest you is a positive form of interest from high officials.

Andrew Criddle

[spin]

Heavy handed manipulation of the facts based on the need to insert Aretas IV into the process in order to justify 2 Cor 11:32.

An embassador follows the same process: First selected by their government, then approved by the authorities of the country he/she will take office in. Anyway, I find logical that it would be an agreement between the king and local authorities about who would be the chief of the Nabataean colony in Damascus.

What you find logical has no necessary correlation with reality. Most fiction, for instance, is inherently logical. You've said nothing useful above.

Damascus was a center of trade by caravans and immediately North of the territory held by the Nabataean Arabs. Furthermore, in the past, Damascus had been part of the Nabataean kingdom. Therefore the presence of a Nabataean minority in Damascus is plausible.

That's what I wrote in the blog post I asked people here to read. I may change the first sentence, saying Damascus was the next large city North to Nabataean controlled caravan routes.
Unfortunately, Nabataeans did not have a Josephus, so we will never know for sure, through text, where and if Nabataeans were inhabiting foreign cities in the southern Levant. Strabo said little about Damascus and, apparently, most of the Roman ruins of Damascus are five meters below the densely packed today's old city. Archaeology cannot help here either. However, from Strabo's Geography:

Above Massyas lies the Royal Valley, as it is called, and also the Damascene country, which is accorded exceptional praise. The city Damascus is also a noteworthy city, having been, I might almost say, even the most famous of the cities in that part of the world in the time of the Persian empire; and above it are situated two Trachones,65 as they are called. And then, towards the parts inhabited promiscuously by Arabians and Ituraeans, are mountains hard to pass, in which there are deep-mouthed caves, one of which can admit as many as four thousand people in times of incursions, such as are made against the Damasceni from many places. For the most part, indeed, the barbarians have been robbing the merchants from Arabia Felix, but this is less the case now that the band of robbers under Zenodorus has been broken up through the good government established by the Romans and through the security established by the Roman soldiers that are kept in Syria.

I do not think merchants from Arabia Felix were reaching the area of Damascus. Then, the Nabataeans had the monopoly of carrying goods of the South of Arabia to the Levant. So Strabo might be confused here. If it is the case, Nabataean caravans were reaching Damascus, therefore making a minority Nabataean population in Damascus even more plausible.

But no sign of any tangible colony of Nabataeans in Damascus. Sorry, Bernard, while I accept your conjecture of Nabataean merchants going to Damascus as quite plausible in theory (assuming that merchants from Arabia Felix were Nabataeans), we are after historical indications, not plausible nor logical per se.

It seems to me therefore that you have no evidence for a significant population of "ethnic Nabataeans" in Damascus to warrant any sort of ethnarch, let alone one sent by a foreign king.

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

It seems to me therefore that you have no evidence for a significant population of "ethnic Nabataeans" in Damascus to warrant any sort of ethnarch, let alone one sent by a foreign king.

I never said I had evidence for that, just that it was plausible.
One is innocent until proven guilty. That's how our justice system works (ideally speaking!). I paraphrase that as: one bit of text is authentic until proven an interpolation. I do not think an interpolation has been proven, so I stick with authenticity (as being written/dictated by Paul).
I do not accept: one bit of text is an interpolation until proven authentic.
Furthermore, Andrew Criddle came up with some good observations and DCHindley had additional related evidence about "ethnarch".

I found many interpolations in the NT, but each time, I justified them by a series of arguments, some very strong. If I cannot, I will not declare part of a text as such.
But that's not what I read on this forum against 2 Cor 11:32-33.

Actually, if 2 Cor 11:32-33 was an interpolation, that would not affect at all my work "Jesus, a historical reconstruction" on the internet. I made mention of it, barely, but did not use it as a time marker anchoring subsequent conclusions about timeline or otherwise.
However, I did considerable work on the timeline of Paul's ministry, using mostly the Paulines and sometimes Acts (and Josephus, etc.), going through the Corinthian letters being interpolated and edited (3 original letters forming each one of the canonical). Without fudging and forcing anything, I came up with a sequence of dated events which makes full sense and certainly is not favorable to Christian beliefs.
One by-product of all that: the escape from Damascus by Paul was in 38 AD.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

to spin,

It seems to me therefore that you have no evidence for a significant population of "ethnic Nabataeans" in Damascus to warrant any sort of ethnarch, let alone one sent by a foreign king.

I never said I had evidence for that, just that it was plausible.
One is innocent until proven guilty. That's how our justice system works (ideally speaking!). I paraphrase that as: one bit of text is authentic until proven an interpolation. I do not think an interpolation has been proven, so I stick with authenticity (as being written/dictated by Paul).
I do not accept: one bit of text is an interpolation until proven authentic.
Furthermore, Andrew Criddle came up with some good observations and DCHindley had additional related evidence about "ethnarch".

Let me make this excruciatingly clear, Bernard, for it seems you didn't take me at my word before. I have not claimed that the passage is an interpolation. It may be, but I don't know. I therefore have little interest on your musing that it isn't an interpolation, for that is just wasting both our time.

You have ducked the issue of the supposed substantial population of "ethnic Nabataeans" in Damascus. You have ducked the fact that Aretas III was known to have been involved with Damascus, though Aretas IV wasn't, calling for the need of substance for linking Aretas IV with Damascus independently of your desires fir 2 Cor 11:32. You've merely conjectured a solution to the strange notion of a foreign functionary operating with some power within Roman Damascus.

What evidence has Dave added regarding the topic of ethnarchs? We are in fact no closer substantively to understanding ethnarchs outside the strictly Jewish context.

...interpolations... ...interpolation...

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,
Can you, once and for all, explain that 2 Cor 11:32-33 is not an interpolation and the Aretas in it is #III. How do you reconcile these two elements? Or do I misrepresent you? BTW, I always knew Aretas III had been in control of Damascus, not only once but twice.

What evidence has Dave added regarding the topic of ethnarchs? We are in fact no closer substantively to understanding ethnarchs outside the strictly Jewish context.

From Dave:

Strabo, in his Geography, says:

XVII the Romans have, to the best of their ability, I might say, set most things right, having organised the city as I have said,91 and having appointed throughout the p53country officials called Epistrategi [The several Epistrategi appointed by the Romans {in Egypt, as opposed to those appointed by Rome in their own affairs,} ... were given only administrative power, being wholly deprived of military power (l.c. p57)] and Nomarchs ["Rulers of Nomes"] and Ethnarchs,[Ruler of Tribes] thought worthy to superintend affairs of no great importance.

Here is the same text without the inserted notes:

Such, then, if not worse, was the state of affairs under the later kings also; but the Romans have, to the best of their ability, I might say, set most things right, having organised the city as I have said, and having appointed throughout the country officials called Epistrategi and Nomarchs and Ethnarchs, thought worthy to superintend affairs of no great importance.

I do not see here ethnarchs in a purely Jewish context.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

to spin,
Can you, once and for all, explain that 2 Cor 11:32-33 is not an interpolation

No I cannot. How many times do I have to tell you that I don't know if it is or isn't. Well, Bernard I don't know. Did you get that? I do not know. Here it is again: I .. do .. not .. know.

and the Aretas in it is #III.

It is the most likely reading of the facts.

How do you reconcile these two elements?

I said in an earlier post "beats me". Do I need to get even more repetitive?

Or do I misrepresent you? BTW, I always knew Aretas III had been in control of Damascus, not only once but twice.

Congratulations.

What evidence has Dave added regarding the topic of ethnarchs? We are in fact no closer substantively to understanding ethnarchs outside the strictly Jewish context.

From Dave:

Strabo, in his Geography, says:

XVII the Romans have, to the best of their ability, I might say, set most things right, having organised the city as I have said,91 and having appointed throughout the p53country officials called Epistrategi [The several Epistrategi appointed by the Romans {in Egypt, as opposed to those appointed by Rome in their own affairs,} ... were given only administrative power, being wholly deprived of military power (l.c. p57)] and Nomarchs ["Rulers of Nomes"] and Ethnarchs,[Ruler of Tribes] thought worthy to superintend affairs of no great importance.

Here is the same text without the inserted notes:

Such, then, if not worse, was the state of affairs under the later kings also; but the Romans have, to the best of their ability, I might say, set most things right, having organised the city as I have said, and having appointed throughout the country officials called Epistrategi and Nomarchs and Ethnarchs, thought worthy to superintend affairs of no great importance.

I do not see here ethnarchs in a purely Jewish context.

You are not concentrating, Bernard. I said, " We are in fact no closer substantively to understanding ethnarchs outside the strictly Jewish context." How has your repetition of Strabo got us any closer substantively to understanding ethnarchs outside the strictly Jewish context? No closer. It just tells us that there were ethnarchs, no substance. In fact it seems that we have no substantive information about the role of the ethnarch outside the Jewish context.

[spin]

While waiting for anything substantive about ethnarchs outside the Jewish context, here is the conclusion to Nadav Sharon "The Title Ethnarch in Second Temple Period Judea", JSJ 41 (2010), 493:

• My conclusion is that this title [ie, "ethnarch"] does not denote ordinary rule, but rather exemplifies a unique Roman view of Jewish existence as a territory-less people, a view which was to persist throughout the remainder of the Second Temple era, following the Roman conquest, and would eventually also help set the stage for post-Destruction Jewish existence. Thus, this title played a role in allowing, perhaps for the first time in their history, the Jews of the Diaspora and the Judeans of Palestine to be perceived as one entity, united for a short while, at least in some aspects of their existence, under a single leadership.

I don't think we can generalize from this about ethnarchs outside the Jewish context.

[TedM]

and the Aretas in it is #III.

It is the most likely reading of the facts.

How do you reconcile these two elements?

I said in an earlier post "beats me". Do I need to get even more repetitive?

I'm also unable to make sense of your position. Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that your position MUST BE that since it is 'most likely' that the Aretas in 2 Cor is Aretas III, the passage 'most likely' cannot have been authentic to Paul, since Paul didn't live at that time? Doesn't that mean NOT that you aren't taking a position, but that in fact you ARE taking the position that the passage is 'most likely' an interpolation?

[Peter Kirby]

[talking to spin] since it is 'most likely' that the Aretas in 2 Cor is Aretas III, the passage 'most likely' cannot have been authentic to Paul, since Paul didn't live at that time?

I'm kind of curious to know how we know the letter-writer Paul didn't live in the first century BC (before 63 BC). For the edifying purpose of knowing the reason that such a strange thing could not be true, not because I have seriously sought to argue that he did.