Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

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 posi...

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 r...

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 ...

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...

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 logic...

Dumbest book of all time. Makes Joe Atwill read like Shakespeare. I don't think the book is stupid at all. Its a great summary of the suppression of the scrolls by the Catholics. It actually isn't as harsh as it could be. It doesnt mention the fact the the Catholic scholars smoked around the scroll...

AND that any ethnarch "under Aretas" would AND that any ethnarch "under Aretas" would have been a Roman approved administrator of the ethnic Nabatean residents of a Roman controlled Damascus, and NOT a Nabataean government official under king Aretas IV, and NOT a Nabataean gover...

I am not sure what you are referring to because it was spin(tm) who had implied that Damascus could not have been a possession of Aretas IV because it sat in a general geographical region that had been given previously to the tetrarch Philip. He has since withdrawn this unsupportable claim, althoug...

Could I ask, instead you of interrogating me to get information, that you actually do some research in order to answer your own questions? A lot of the primary sources regarding ethnarchs have already been cited earlier in this thread. Once you're up to speed, you can interact with the evidence. NO...

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 ...