Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

[GakuseiDon]

spin: here

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.

I don't disagree with spin there on "official agent". But the definition of "ethnarch" doesn't hinge on how they were defined in Alexandria. It literally means "tribal leader". We don't really know how Paul is using that term, and what it would mean to have an ethnarch outside Alexandria.

Imagine the Emperor TIberius orders the governor of Syria to send a few men to arrest a trouble-maker who is living in a major city controlled by King Aretas. Would the governor say "no, I have no control over that city, it's impossible for me to do that"? I doubt it.

Partial control - no evidence...

Bottom line - Aretas IV had no control of Damascus during the NT standard timeline.

As you can see, that doesn't impact my point above. I still think the natural reading supports the reading you have, so that is the stronger reading. My point is sheer speculation, and can be treated as such. I have no problem with that. It's just that it seems you have kept misreading that point, if you think my point was about control of Damascus, partial or otherwise! Just as the Jewish ethnarchs of Alexandria might be expected to have some influence with Jews outside of Alexandria and even outside of the Roman Empire itself, it might have been (and again, speculation on my part!) the same with an ethnarch of Aretas's.

Fair point on the dating of Paul with regards to the re-establishment of Corinth.

[StephenGoranson]

Imo, in evaluating an ancient writing for history, it does not help to begin by assuming that it is all true nor that it is all false.

[GakuseiDon]

Imo, in evaluating an ancient writing for history, it does not help to begin by assuming that it is all true nor that it is all false.

While I agree, at some point you have to assume that some things are true and some things are false. If we require 100% either way, we end up with nothing, because few things can be established as 100% certain in history. I don't think that's a problem as long as we are clear ourselves what is speculation and how much speculation is there. I liked Dr Carrier's Bayesian approach to questions of history. That might be a good way to move forward.

[maryhelena]

spin: here

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.

I don't disagree with spin there on "official agent". But the definition of "ethnarch" doesn't hinge on how they were defined in Alexandria. It literally means "tribal leader". We don't really know how Paul is using that term, and what it would mean to have an ethnarch outside Alexandria.

spin : here

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 rather exemplifies a unique Roman view of Jewish existence as a territory-less people, a view which was to persist throughout the remainder of the Second Temple era, following the Roman conquest, and would eventually also help set the stage for post-Destruction Jewish existence. Thus, this title played a role in allowing, perhaps for the first time in their history, the Jews of the Diaspora and the Judeans of Palestine to be perceived as one entity, united for a short while, at least in some aspects of their existence, under a single leadership.

I don't think we can generalize from this about ethnarchs outside the Jewish context.

The Title Ethnarch in Second Temple Period Judea

Nadav Sharon

https://www.academia.edu/1451523/The_Ti ... riod_Judea

Imagine the Emperor TIberius orders the governor of Syria to send a few men to arrest a trouble-maker who is living in a major city controlled by King Aretas. Would the governor say "no, I have no control over that city, it's impossible for me to do that"? I doubt it.

Yep, I can imagine a Roman Emperor controlling Syria sending his governor to Petra - but methinks the governor would not get far with a city ruled by Aretas III - or Aretas IV. Actually, I understand Petra was a very difficult place to invade - or try cloak and dagger stuff. Rome controlled Damascus, it's governor was under Rome. According to 2 Cor.11.32, the ethnarch of Damascus was under Aretas - i.e. Aretas had control of Damascus as Rome had control of Damascus. That rules out Aretas IV.

Partial control - no evidence...

Bottom line - Aretas IV had no control of Damascus during the NT standard timeline.

As you can see, that doesn't impact my point above. I still think the natural reading supports the reading you have, so that is the stronger reading. My point is sheer speculation, and can be treated as such. I have no problem with that. It's just that it seems you have kept misreading that point, if you think my point was about control of Damascus, partial or otherwise!

Sorry if I have misunderstood you point about that ethnarch of Aretas had no control over Damascus - but was trying to catch Paul as he was leaving Damascus - thus outside the gates or around and about. Which is cloak and dagger stuff - which I don't think is what 2 Cor.11.32 is indicating. The danger for Paul was inside the city of Damascus hence his escape.

Just as the Jewish ethnarchs of Alexandria might be expected to have some influence with Jews outside of Alexandria and even outside of the Roman Empire itself, it might have been (and again, speculation on my part!) the same with an ethnarch of Aretas's.

That suggests that the ethnarch of Aretas was an ethnarch of some other city - but it's the city of Damascus that is at issue.

Fair point on the dating of Paul with regards to the re-establishment of Corinth.

Actually, methinks, one can take the Corinth issue a bit further than assuming an age for a Paul figure. (re Aretas III dating).

Acts has its Paul figure in Corinth during or around the time of Gallio - 50 - 52 c.e.

Aretas III controlled Damascus - and probably, re 2 Cor.11.32, had an ethnarch/governor there. (85 to 72 b.c. and 69 to 64/63 b.c.). Aretas III was involved with the Hasmoneans.

Rome destroyed Corinth in 146 b.c. The city was rebuild in 44 b.c. by Julius Caesar.

Claudius controlled Corinth - and send Gallio as proconsul around 50 -51 c.e.

What was relevant about this Gallio Corinth dating ? A new proconsul is hardly a historical event of significance. Interestingly, Claudius did do something that had relevance for the Paul figure of Acts. Claudius appointed Agrippa II as King of the territory once held by his father Agrippa I. Acts going on to have it's Paul figure appear before Agrippa II and his sister Bernice.

The dating for Agrippa II is complicated re the Josephan dating and the dating by Tactius. (Tacitus wrote that Agrippa of Judaea died in the 8th consulate of Claudius, 49 c.e.)

Whatever the exact dating - Claudius made Agrippa II King around the dating Acts gives for Gallio. Agrippa II lived to between 93/94 and 100 c.e.

Herod Agrippa II

Death

According to the Photius I of Constantinople, Agrippa died, childless, at the age of seventy, in the third year of the reign of Trajan, that is, 100,[15] but statements of historian Josephus, in addition to the contemporary epigraphy from his kingdom, cast this date into serious doubt.[citation needed] The modern scholarly consensus holds that he died before 93/94.[1] He was the last prince from the House of Herod.

Last prince of the House of Herod - but not to forget his Hasmonean roots back to Mariamne the Hasmonean.

Thus, the Roman dating for Corinth can take one back to the early Hasmonean dynasty. It can take one forward to the last Jewish King with Hasmonean roots. Yep, maybe more than meets the eye with Acts...

[neilgodfrey]

Imo, in evaluating an ancient writing for history, it does not help to begin by assuming that it is all true nor that it is all false.

Hi Stephen. If I may posit a friendly contribution here as one who has had a life-long love affair with ancient history in particular, I believe that there is something more fundamental that the classicist or historian of ancient times asks before even applying assumptions of truth or falsity to the contents of a piece of writing.

That prior step is to establish what sort of writing is being examined. That can be very difficult at times to determine, especially since genre boundaries were of less interest to many writers of Greco-Roman literature. But the fundamentals are: is it a legal treatise? is it a philosophical discussion? is it a political or government announcement? is it a tragedy for public performance? is it a "historia"? etc

If we are able to answer question like that -- however incompletely -- then we are in a better position to know even whether or not it is even relevant to ask if its contents are "true" or "false".

Another question that is fundamental before the historian knows how to interpret the value of the contents of the writing is the question of its provenance and authorship. Indirectly related to the document's provenance is the question of its authorship.

Thus if an inscription is found on a monument in the middle of an ancient palace and the inscription itself declares it is the word of the king, then and only then is the historian in a position to ask: "are the contents of this inscription true or false or a mixture?"

When we read Plato's discussion of Atlantis the scholar would be quite foolish to immediately begin asking if the story is all true or all false. The scholar will, if competent, read more broadly for the context and find out why Plato is telling the story, what he has said about its purpose, etc.

Once that context and the "genre" of the story are established, then the historian knows if it is even worth the effort of asking "Is this all true or all false?" It is entirely myth so it can be discarded from the outset from historical narratives of any kind.

Unfortunately, when it comes to biblical studies, we seem to meet -- all too often, not always, but all too often -- a different kind of "historian" entirely.

[neilgodfrey]

I liked Dr Carrier's Bayesian approach to questions of history. That might be a good way to move forward.

Richard C's Bayesian approach is useful for evaluating hypotheses, not facts. (Unless the question of the factness of a fact is itself a hypothesis.) RC would recognize that that's the nature of Bayes because he has said, correctly, that the historical Jesus is indeed a hypothesis advanced to explain Christian origins.

The first step in any Bayesian approach to the question of Aretas in relation to Paul would be to evaluate the hypothesis that the reference to Aretas in 2 Cor 11:32 is a gloss or interpolation: Reason to Doubt the Only Historical Date Marker in Paul’s Letters?

[GakuseiDon]

I liked Dr Carrier's Bayesian approach to questions of history. That might be a good way to move forward.

Richard C's Bayesian approach is useful for evaluating hypotheses, not facts. (Unless the question of the factness of a fact is itself a hypothesis.) RC would recognize that that's the nature of Bayes because he has said, correctly, that the historical Jesus is indeed a hypothesis advanced to explain Christian origins.

Yes, I agree. It's important to give up the idea that we can get to "facts" about ancient history, including that there was indeed a historical Jesus. On some things we can of course, but more often than not it comes down to a level of confidence about what is "more likely". That's where I see Bayes Theorem as a useful tool in helping to benchmark that level of confidence.

[neilgodfrey]

I liked Dr Carrier's Bayesian approach to questions of history. That might be a good way to move forward.

Richard C's Bayesian approach is useful for evaluating hypotheses, not facts. (Unless the question of the factness of a fact is itself a hypothesis.) RC would recognize that that's the nature of Bayes because he has said, correctly, that the historical Jesus is indeed a hypothesis advanced to explain Christian origins.

Yes, I agree. It's important to give up the idea that we can get to "facts" about ancient history, including that there was indeed a historical Jesus. On some things we can of course, but more often than not it comes down to a level of confidence about what is "more likely". That's where I see Bayes Theorem as a useful tool in helping to benchmark that level of confidence.

Now I cannot agree at this point because this is where I find people taking certain claims of probability way too far with respect to history, no matter how ancient. Historians of ancient times are very careful to get their facts right and to work with facts that can be established as facts. Without them there can be no history. No historian works entirely with probabilities.

There is nothing "probable" about the existence of the Roman Empire or Julius Caesar or the Jewish war of 66-70 (except at an abstract philosophical level that is meaningless vis a vis history as it is practiced.) Where Bayes enters is in attempting to resolve a relationship between evidence and hypotheses. Historians don't ask: was there a Jewish war 66-70? they ask: what led to that war? or some other question that is in effect proposing a hypothesis about the fact of that war.

That's what historians do. They attempt to explain situations, experiences, events. The situations and events they are seeking to explain are facts. They are not probabilities.

If you challenge a historian by saying that he or she has not relied on facts or has misrepresented facts you will as often as not be opening up a really good fight. It will be a total "history war" and there will be no "probabilities" yielded by either side.

I think some people confuse the assurance that there are real facts with the positivist approach to history. They are not the same thing.

[GakuseiDon]

Yes, I agree. It's important to give up the idea that we can get to "facts" about ancient history, including that there was indeed a historical Jesus. On some things we can of course, but more often than not it comes down to a level of confidence about what is "more likely". That's where I see Bayes Theorem as a useful tool in helping to benchmark that level of confidence.

Now I cannot agree at this point because this is where I find people taking certain claims of probability way too far with respect to history, no matter how ancient. Historians of ancient times are very careful to get their facts right and to work with facts that can be established as facts. Without them there can be no history. No historian works entirely with probabilities.

Sure, on some things we can have facts to start off with, and those represent a baseline that historians can work from.

[neilgodfrey]

Sure, on some things we can have facts to start off with, and those represent a baseline that historians can work from.

No, that's not what I mean. The historian does not work with a "baseline" that contains "facts to start off with". They do not start with secure facts and then "from those" try to establish more facts with greater and lesser degrees of probability with the intent of building up a more complete picture of what "probably" happened. That's definitely not what they do.

Bayesian analysis merely describes what historians do and that is not trying to figure out "the facts of the past". Biblical scholars are too often guilty of creating a false impression here about the nature of history -- that is, when they (and it is mostly biblical historians who are guilty, though there are some exceptions) say that what they do, the most they can do, is ascertain what "probably happened". That's a biblical studies quirk that is not part of historical thinking in other departments.

What ancient historians do is start with sources and then propose hypotheses to explain those sources and whether consciously Bayesian or not, they evaluate the probabilities of each hypothesis to explain the sources.

They don't "start from facts" and build up a picture that is "probably" more or less complete.

Only in biblical studies have I seen "historians" declare that this or that event "probably" happened and use that as the basis of their historical reconstruction. Historians elsewhere roll their eyes at such "methods".