Was Aretas King of Damascus @ 2 Corinthians 11:32?

[spin]

No help. An ethnarch can be a position of political power as in the example of Archelaus.

I do not disagree with that. I just said that some official called ethnarch were not in position of power like Archelaus.

Face it, Archelaus was an ethnarch. It's on his coins even.

No, he didn't. He notes that "Augustus did not prohibit the making such ethnarchs". Nowhere does he make provision for the appointment of ethnarchs. What he does do is guarantee the exercise of the Jewish religion.

Claudius re-established what was going on under Augustus but cancelled by Caligula. And that included Jewish ethnarch.

The text you cite certainly doesn't say that Claudius re-established the position of a Jewish ethnarch. You are not reading the text.

"I will therefore that the nation of the Jews be not deprived of their rights and privileges, on account of the madness of Caius; but that those rights and privileges which they formerly [under Augustus] enjoyed be preserved to them [under Claudius], and that they may continue in their own customs"

What are "those rights and privileges"?

Actually Jewish ethnarch were considered very important for keeping the Jews following their religion and customs:
"Augustus did not prohibit the making such ethnarchs, as willing that all men should be so subject [to the Romans] as to continue in the observation of their own customs, and not be forced to transgress the ancient rules of their own country religion"
Why? Without an ethnarch, the others could not pick on the Jews, one by one.

More making things up. The impact of Claudius's edict for the whole empire involves it being on display for 30 days (#291), so that everyone can read it and know the law. That allows the edict to be enforced through official means.

With an ethnarch (as a tribe/minority chief) with some authority, they will be defended and able to follow their religion and customs with no interference from others.

That has nothing to do with Claudius's edict. It's no wonder you don't know what's going on and you maintain such a weird approach to the topic.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Here is the Textual Criticism for the offending verse here:

http://lovewins.us/bible/compare/2%20Co ... ns%2011:32

32 G1722 εν IN G1154 δαμασκω DAMASCUS G3588 ο THE G1481 εθναρχης ETHNARCH G702 αρετα OF ARETAS G3588 του THE G935 βασιλεως KING G5432 (G5707) εφρουρει WAS GUARDING G3588 την THE G1153 δαμασκηνων OF THE DAMASCENES G4172 πολιν CITY, G4084 (G5658) πιασαι TO TAKE G3165 με ME G2309 (G5723) θελων WISHING.

The textual witness without the addition of "G2309 (G5723) θελων WISHING" at the end is B, D* and sa (note especially the edit of D to include, indicating the key criterion of direction of change). NA omits and the evil and wicked KJV includes.

I believe the significance of the edit is to transfer the motivation for arrest from the king, Aretas, to the ethnarch, in order to make the origination of the effort local (Damascus) rather than from outside where Aretas was. Without the addition the ethnarch is just following orders. With the addition, it's the ethnarch who decided to arrest Paul, he is just the ethnarch of Aretas. This than moves the offending verse closer to Acts. The motivation to persecute is local rather than foreign.


Joseph

Errancywiki