Regarding 2 Corinthians 11:32:
this Thread will:In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take me: (ASV)
- Identify
Inventory
Evaluate
The final step will be for the Thread to conclude, based on available evidence, which is more likely:
- A) Aretas was not King of Damascus at the time described in 2 Corinthians 11:32.
B) Aretas was King of Damascus at the time described in 2 Corinthians 11:32.
Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket case
to get some background. That Thread combines at least 2 different possible errors in the offending verse:
- 1) Aretas was King of Damascus at the time described in 2 Corinthians 11:32.
2) King Aretas had an Ethnarch in Damascus at the time described in 2 Corinthians 11:32.
As near as I can tell, most defenders of the Faith of 2 Corinthians 11:32 in the preceding Thread agree that Aretas was not King of Damascus at the time but instead defend by placing an Ethnarch in their defense. I have hope for this Thread though that there is still no shortage of those who will offer as defense that Aretas was KIng of Damascus at the time. For example
: Aretas IV Philopatris [quote]The Christian Apostle, Paul, mentions that he had to sneak out of Damascus in a basket through a window in the wall to escape the Governor (ethnarch) of King Aretas. (2 Corinthians 11:32, 33, cf Acts 9:23, 24), The question remains open as to when King Aretas received Damascus from Caligula in the imperial settlement of the affairs of Syria. The Aretas’ administration in Damascus may have begun as early as AD 37 based upon archeological evidence in the form of a Damascus coin, with the image of King Aretas and the date 101. If that date points to the Pompeian era, it equals AD 37 (T. E. Mionnet, Description des medailles antiques greques et romaines, V [1811], 284f.)[/quote] This appears to be a common assertion from Christian Bible scholars, 2 Corinthians 11:32 says that Aretas was King of Damascus so this is accepted as Gospel and than external evidence is only used to try and date the assertion. Looking forward I myself have identified the following issues by subject which create doubt as to whether Aretas was King of Damascus at this time: [list]1) Dating. The externally known Aretas IV reigned until 40. 2) Geographical. Aretas IV was king of Nabataea, on the wrong side of Israel from Damascus. 3) Conflict. Aretas IV was in conflict with Rome late in his career. 4) Source. Aretas III did control Damascus in the 1st century BCE establishing a source for error. 5) Significance. It's unlikely that Rome would have granted outside control to a major city like Damascus. 6) Reaction. "Luke", giving the same account, exorcises "Aretas" from the story. 7) Implausibility. The related action claim of the verse, that Paul escaped via a basket through a window, is unlikely and if a story is generally unlikely, that makes the individual claims more likely to be in error. 8) Explanation. From a Literary Criticism standpoint Christian editing gives promotions to the authority of Paul's competitors/adversaries[/list] Now, on to determination. The first step in determining error is to determine what the offending verse likely says. Does it indicate that Aretas was King of Damascus at the time?: 2 Corinthians 11:32 [quote]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[/quote] 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. Further, the letter is not addressed to historians of 1st century Levant. It is addressed to Corinthians. For the most part they would not have known what we do now and likely would have assumed based on what was written, that Aretas was King of Damascus. 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. I will not weight this though until/unless it is blessed by a Professor of Biblical Greek. 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. Since Aretas had either recently or even still currently been deemed an unfriendly by Rome, it is unlikely Rome would have allowed him a presence in Damascus. There's a word we use for that sort of thing. It's called "spy". The challenge for the defenders here is to inventory examples of writings contemporary to Paul where: [list]1) One King is mentioned. 2) One city is mentioned. 3) The King is described as having significant control over the city. [/list] And we know or at least it is likely that this King was not the King of the city mentioned. It needs to be an impressive list because if there are only a few such examples than we can conclude that this type of writing, by itself, normally would mean that the King mentioned is King of the city mentioned. Again, don't annoy me with what is possible here. We are looking for what is likely. Mazel tov. Joseph ErrancyWiki
