Moderator: andrewcriddle
Unfortunately, there is no evidence for that in secular writings or archaeology. Whoever entered it on Wiki had to base that only on his/her interpretation of 2 Corinthians 11:32-33.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.
My Wikipedia says something else:TedM wrote:Is this not accurate?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[/b]. However, around the year 106, Nabataea was conquered by the Romans, and Damascus returned to Roman control.
Should I add "citation needed," just for good measure?In the year 37, Roman Emperor Caligula transferred Damascus, along with the former land of Philip the Tetrarch, to Herod Agrippa I by decree. The city was thus safeguarded against military incursion by the Nabataean king Aretas IV Philopatris.
Ted, perhaps a 'romantic story' has more going for it than futile attempts to ascribe historicity to this NT account of Paul in Damascus while that city was under control of an Aretas.TedM wrote: 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.
Point well taken. I think we all know Wiki is suspect, and I felt like the only citation of much value would have been one for the actual claim - which didn't exist. It did sound authoratative though even without a citation from themPeter Kirby wrote:My Wikipedia says something else:TedM wrote:Is this not accurate?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[/b]. However, around the year 106, Nabataea was conquered by the Romans, and Damascus returned to Roman control.
Should I add "citation needed," just for good measure?In the year 37, Roman Emperor Caligula transferred Damascus, along with the former land of Philip the Tetrarch, to Herod Agrippa I by decree. The city was thus safeguarded against military incursion by the Nabataean king Aretas IV Philopatris.
Possible, but my points to consider seem to me to be based more in reality than speculation that a story was made up that inserted Aretas in one and not the other as some kind of comparison to Joshua. This historical background of a feuding Antipas-Aretas seems a more solid foundation from which to analyze IMO.maryhelena wrote:Ted, perhaps a 'romantic story' has more going for it than futile attempts to ascribe historicity to this NT account of Paul in Damascus while that city was under control of an Aretas.TedM wrote: 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.
The NT presents Paul as taking up the mantel of good news presenter to the gentiles: The new leader that follows on the JC mission. Spiritual 'warfare' as opposed to the physical warfare of the OT Joshua. Paul escaping over the Damascus wall a re-telling of Joshua escaping over the wall of Jericho. Joshua was once Hoshea - as Paul was once Saul. Moses and Joshua. Paul and JC.
As for Damascus and Aretas: The NT dates Paul somewhere in the middle 30s c.e. i.e. ruling out Aretas III as having any connection with the NT Paul. Aretas IV did not rule Damascus. Aretas III lost Damascus, to Pompey, around 64/63 b.c. The significant mention of Aretas IV during the NT time period is the war with Antipas - around 36/37 c.e. This is around a 100 year period. A 100 year period which the NT, because of it's failure to specify what Aretas it is talking about, has, as it were, put on the table. Put on the table to be considered as relevant to early christian history.
The real issue here is not about the NT figure of Paul and when he was in Damascus under Aretas - the real issue is these 100 years of Jewish history - and what the NT writers deemed to be relevant within that history for their NT story.
Who is that Genarch? Looks to be Herod the Great.In Flacc. 74, that a council of elders was appointed by Augustus to manage Jewish affairs after the death of the genarch.
I thought the kingdom of Aretas IV was a client kingdom to the Romans, the same than the kingdom of Herod Antipas (Galilee & Perea).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.
Maybe the ethnarch of Aretas was in function in Damascus before 37 and not revoked, maybe this ethnarch was one concession after 37, in exchange for Aretas' army to withdraw from Perea (the most likely location for the battle).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.
The translation of φρουρεω (from the LXX) to "putteth garrisons" was done by a modern translator and therefore is not evidence, even if, in these cases, the translation makes sense.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.
spin wrote: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.Peter Kirby wrote: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.
. . . Client Kingdom's, such as an alleged rule of Damascus by the Nabataean's was forbidden by the emperor Tiberius. When Tiberius died in 37A.D., Caligula reinstated client kings such as Antiochus and Agrippa. Considering that the Nabataean's controlled Damascus before, they would greatly desire to be in control of Damascus again. Caligula, in return, had a reason to be grateful to the Nabateans who had at one time helped his father Germanicus defeat the governor of Syria with the support of the Nabataeans. Therefore, “it is very probable, that the Nabataeans acquired control of Damascus in the latter half of 37 A.D.”
