GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:54 am
maryhelena wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:51 pm
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.
maryhelena wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:51 pmPartial 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...