Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket case

[Peter Kirby]

2 Corinthians seems to say so

It may seem, but it does not say so.

It uses the same language somebody would use to say so ("under King Aretas," not unlike the credal formula "under Pontius Pilate").

[Peter Kirby]

Where did you get the idea I hate you? If it is what you mean.

No, I don't mean that literally. And, truthfully, a sharp adversary is more valuable than any number of agreeable people, so thanks for doing your part to keep me honest. (A dull one, however, merely irritates to no end.)

[Bernard Muller]

I think the YLT translation follows the Greek very closely (with no "under" and "garrison"!):

In Damascus the ethnarch of Aretas the king was watching the city of the Damascenes, wishing to seize me,

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

ἐν Δαμασκῷ ὁ ἐθνάρχης Ἁρέτα τοῦ βασιλέως ἐφρούρει τὴν πόλιν Δαμασκηνῶν πιάσαι με, (2Co 11:32 BGT)

You're correct that epi (the Greek for the Latin "sub" in the creed) doesn't appear here.

You're sorta correct that it is possible if unlikely that Nabatea at some point were allowed to post representatives in cities that had Nabatean populations, on analogy with the ethnarch (genarch??) of Alexandria that had the function of representing the Jews of the city there.

I'm correct that the only reason we look at it this way is to attempt to avoid the implausibility of what the text suggests. Neither Nabatean control of the city nor a Nabatean ethnarch belonging to Aretas IV being stationed in the city is attested from other sources. We are at risk of violating Ockham's razor by postulating them in order to preserve the historicity of a story that (also) otherwise appears to be nothing but fantasy (not unlike the many other fantasies presented in the apocryphal and canonical Acts).

The only reason this story is treated as more likely than the many, many apocryphal romances involving the apostles is its present position in the canonical "authentic" letter of 2 Corinthians, which says something about the value of such assumptions regarding these letters (i.e., that they distort our objective interpretation of the evidence and need to be re-evaluated in a serious way).

[spin]

ruled by Nabatean kings

Peter, on my blog post on the matter, I never said Damascus was ruled by Aretas at that time.
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p65.htm

The assumptions expressed in the link provided above give no heed to a number of issues. First, the report of Josephus concerning these extraordinary ethnarchs in AJ 19.283 does not agree with what Philo says, In Flacc. 74, that a council of elders was appointed by Augustus to manage Jewish affairs after the death of the genarch. It would seem that Josephus got it wrong. Second, the report of this "ethnarch" deals specifically with the Jews and can in no way be associated appointments by Aretas IV present in Damascus. Third, the Jews were inside the Roman empire, while the Nabataeans were not and had no political existence inside the empire, especially in the few years between the war with Herod Antipas and the death of Aretas. It is therefore certainly not very plausible that Aretas had an official agent of any sort in or around Roman controlled Damascus, let alone one between 37 and 40 CE. Perhaps you might like to move Paul's activities earlier.

One might be interested in the fact that, although it wasn't used in this passage there is a Greek word for "flat basket": ταρσος.

[spin]

ἐν Δαμασκῷ ὁ ἐθνάρχης Ἁρέτα τοῦ βασιλέως ἐφρούρει τὴν πόλιν Δαμασκηνῶν πιάσαι με, (2Co 11:32 BGT)

You're correct that epi (the Greek for the Latin "sub" in the creed) doesn't appear here.

But there is something strange about the usage of the verb φρουρεω. The following citations are YLT of the Hebrew and in each LXX instance the Greek translation has a nominal form of our verb, which suggests that in such contexts in the Judeo-christian Greek tradition word indicates a body of soldiers in control of a situation, here garrisoning a city.

• 2 Samuel 8:6 and David putteth garrisons in Aram of Damascus, and Aram is to David for a servant, bearing a present; and Jehovah saveth David whithersoever he hath gone;
  2 Samuel 8:14 and he putteth in Edom garrisons—in all Edom he hath put garrisons, and all Edom are servants to David; and Jehovah saveth David whithersoever he hath gone.
  1 Chronicles 18:6 and David putteth garrisons in Aram of Damascus, and the Aramaeans are to David for servants, bearing a present, and Jehovah giveth salvation to David whithersoever he hath gone.
  1 Chronicles 18:13 and he putteth in Edom garrisons, and all the Edomites are servants to David; and Jehovah saveth David whithersoever he hath gone.

Does anyone really want to believe that Rome would let Aretas have a garrison of soldiers in control of one of their cities (be it from the inside or out)?

[stephan happy huller]

Any self-reference to the apostle's historical identity (i.e. places, names, events) should be viewed as suspicious owing to Tertullian's statement at the beginning of Book 5 that the Marcionite version of the apostolikon left the identity of the apostle shrouded in mystery. The Catholic editors of the collection of letters did their best at every turn to add historical details which brought him in to a familiar (and 'friendly') group of associates. The network reinforces an understanding of 'Paul' which made him compatible with 'orthodox values.' Most of these historical details - or at least many of them - were extracted through a superficial gleaning of Josephus (i.e. Luke's census, Acts's Egyptian confused with Paul). No one should take any of these historical references seriously.

[spin]

I guess we can forget this basket case.

[Bernard Muller]

I'll answer spin interesting counterpoints later. I have urgent things to do now.
Cordially, Bernard

[TedM]

The Damascus King Aretas reference is very important in the sense that it is the only possibly historically testable reference 'Paul' makes in his 'authentic' epistles.

Another point of contact between the Pauline letters and the pre-70 AD period occurs in 2 Cor 12:31-33, which has the passage about Paul being let down in a basket through a window in the wall to escape the "ethnarch under King Aretas," the last known Nabatean king by this name having died in 40 AD.

The story seems fairly implausible, between the romantic escape and the otherwise uncorroborated Nabatean presence in Damascus, but it does show that the author of the letter (or these verses of the letter) implies that Paul had been active in the period before 40 AD.

The story causes a wry smile, considering the only time we know that the Nabataeans had control of Damascus was briefly before Pompey's arrival there in 64 BCE. The thought that the last Aretas had control over the city is laughable, given that Nabataea was not directly within the Roman sphere of influence, ie not a tributary state or a province, and had attacked the Roman client, Herod Antipas, stimulating Tiberius in his last year to attempt to sent his Syrian legate, Vitellius, to seek retaliation against Aretas, though, when Tiberius died, Caligula curtailed the action. It seems ridiculous to posit that the Romans would have given any privileges to Aretas, such as would give him control over Damascus.

Wiki, on the history of Damascus:

In 64 BC, the Roman general Pompey annexed the western part of Syria. The Romans occupied Damascus and subsequently incorporated it into the league of ten cities known as the Decapolis because it was considered such an important center of Greco-Roman culture. According to the New Testament, Saint Paul was on the road to Damascus when he received a vision of Jesus, and as a result accepted him as the Messiah. In the year 37, Roman Emperor Caligula transferred Damascus to Nabataean control by decree. The Nabataean king Aretas IV Philopatris ruled Damascus from his capital Petra. However, around the year 106, Nabataea was conquered by the Romans, and Damascus returned to Roman control.

Is this not accurate? IF it is, then the historical possibility isn't in question.

Even if it is not, the argument that Rome would not give 'privileges' to Aretas seems to have little basis other than conjecture. Many factors affect such decisions. Who knows what kind of tit for tat agreements were made?

A few things to consider:
1. If Paul was stirring things up in Damascus, and Aretas ruled Damascus, this is sufficient reason for Aretas to care.
2. Aretas had a bitter rivalry with Herod. Some believe Paul was part of the Herodian family. In Romans 16 Paul writes "Greet Herodion, my kinsman". Aretas may have had a personal vendetta against Paul for this reason.
3. If Jews in Damascus didn't like Paul, and had known of his Herodian connections, they may have instigated action with the ethnarch residing there.
4. Paul's account (nor Acts) doesn't say that Damascus was under Aretas' rule. All it says is that the PERSON under Aretas (the ethnarch) was trying to seize Paul.

While Peter sees this as a 'romantic' story, how else might one who is being sought by the authorities have escaped? Seems to me that there are some reasonable explanations here that fit the accounts we have.

I might point out that once again we have slightly different accounts between the Epistles and Acts, with no apparent concern in early history (either by the 'writers' or the readers) regarding the differences. How do those that find these accounts so implausible or irreconcilable account for this silence? How also do you explain 2 later forgeries with such similar accounts existing? Coincidence?