Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

TedM wrote:very interesting. Can you find a citation regarding this?

Well the Scroll is the Damascas Document. Did you mean Aretas taking the region? That's Josephus.

arnoldo wrote:

Bernard Muller wrote:

Spin wrote:Damascus was part of the territory of Philip,

Do you have evidence for that?

Cordially, Bernard

Is this the same Philip that this source states died in 34 A.D?

With incredible timing, Philip the Tetrarch died in the winter of 33/34 AD, mere months after Jesus had died (and risen) and not long since the new cult had been run out of Jerusalem. From Nabatea, King Aretas - who had been raised by the generation of Arabs who’d lost so much land to the Herods - now began operations to reclaim those eastern territories.

As the Nabateans began marching north, Rome was otherwise occupied. Tiberius Caesar was retired on the Isle of Capri and his praetorian prefect Macro (Sejanus' replacement) was running the Empire. The Province of Syria had also gone through a decade of absentee rule by one Governor Lamia, who was followed by Governor Flaccus, who died in 33 (or 34) and who was not replaced until Governor Vitellius, who arrived in Sytria in the year 35. But Vitellius’ attention was immediately absorbed by conflicts in other areas.

Aretas took the advantage of the moment, pressed as far north as the Golan Heights, and captured Gamala – a city of Philip’s now being held by the army (!) of Herod Antipas

Paul's Arabia (or) Nabatea and the New Testament

If indeed Philip died in 34 A.D. then apparently his territory was added to the province of Syria by Tiberius at the same time Aretas was invading Philip's old territory.

Grow a tenable source and stop citing internet schlock, please.

JW:
2 Corinthians 11:32

In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take me: (ASV)

The issue of whether Aretas was King of Damascus at this time had been extensively argued at BCH and I had the following inventory of reasons to think error based on the BCH thread:

2 Corinthians is commonly dated to c. 55. It is unlikely that Aretas was king of Damascus at this time for the following reasons:

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.

Note that these reasons range from just indicating it unlikely that there is external support for the offending verse
to moving beyond defensive to the offensive, indicating it likely the offending verse is in error due to
conflict/contradiction with external evidence.

Looking through this Thread much of the disconnect is because advocates of error are arguing error is likely
while defenders, sounding like Apologists, are only arguing that it is possible there is not an error. Per this Thread
I see one more additional reason to argue for error, courtesy of Peter:

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.

I do not see anything in this Thread making any of the above points unlikely.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take me: (ASV)

The Greek has "ethnarch", not governor (giving the impression this guy was governing the city). There is no "under" also, just "of".
According to Josephus (Ant., XIX, V, 2-3), the Jews of Alexandria (Egypt) were represented by an ethnarch under Augustus. And the practice was reintroduced by Claudius, and extended for cities with Diaspora Jews. So ethnarch does not have to mean ruler.

2 Corinthians is commonly dated to c. 55. It is unlikely that Aretas was king of Damascus at this time for the following reasons:

1) Dating. The externally known Aretas IV reigned until 40.

I agree for the approximate dating of the 2 Corinthians letters, but the escape from Damascus occurred many years before, according to Galatians & Acts. (According to my calculation, from data within the Pauline epistles and Acts, the year of the escape is 38).

2) Geographical. Aretas IV was king of Nabataea, on the wrong side of Israel from Damascus

What side? Does that matter? I do not think so. Anyway, Damascus was near the northern border of Aretas' controlled territory.

3) Conflict. Aretas IV was in conflict with Rome late in his career.

Aretas IV was in conflict with Rome only from the end of 36 to early 37. There was peace after that.

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.

That does not affect my case.

6) Reaction. "Luke", giving the same account, exorcises "Aretas" from the story

"Luke" might not have had accurate or complete information on this episode. Also, "Luke" had the habit to have the Jews causing trouble for Paul.

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.

If you are not an experienced climber and not able to rappel down on a fixed rope, then a basket lowered down by a few friends is an excellent idea (at least in antiquity).

Cordially, Bernard

According to Josephus (Ant., XIX, V, 2-3), the Jews of Alexandria (Egypt) were represented by an ethnarch under Augustus.

Bernard, ich verstehe Sie nicht. Sind Sie ein Atheist oder Sie sind sehr kirchlich? I can't fathom why you persist with this stupid line of reasoning. Yes there were ethnarchs like the one in Alexandria. But would the ethnarch of Alexandria be described as 'the ethnarch of King Agrippa' for instance? No of course not. The ethnarch in Alexandria was simply 'the Jewish ethnarch.' So the point is that 'the ethnarch of King Aretas' implies that Aretas ruled in Damascus when the ethnarch had authority. I cannot find a single example of an ethnarch being associated with a foreign king when Romans had control of the area associated with the ethnarch.

Indeed I can't find an example of an ethnarch being associated with a king PERIOD. The two terms don't seem to overlap. There is no 'ethnarch X of king Y" anywhere in history as far as I can see which is odd.

stephan happy huller wrote:

According to Josephus (Ant., XIX, V, 2-3), the Jews of Alexandria (Egypt) were represented by an ethnarch under Augustus.

Bernard, ich verstehe Sie nicht. Sind Sie ein Atheist oder Sie sind sehr kirchlich?

Naughty, Genghiz, naughty, very naughty. And not sehr wohlwollend.

stephan happy huller wrote:I can't fathom why you persist with this stupid line of reasoning.

Your personal editor would have excised everything to this point. The rest is fine. Well,... it's ok.... Well,....

stephan happy huller wrote:Yes there were ethnarchs like the one in Alexandria. But would the ethnarch of Alexandria be described as 'the ethnarch of King Agrippa' for instance? No of course not. The ethnarch in Alexandria was simply 'the Jewish ethnarch.' So the point is that 'the ethnarch of King Aretas' implies that Aretas ruled in Damascus when the ethnarch had authority. I cannot find a single example of an ethnarch being associated with a foreign king when Romans had control of the area associated with the ethnarch.

Here is a description of the function of the Jewish ethnarch in Alexandria, from Strabo being quoted by Josephus:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... g=original
Was that ethnarch nominated by the Jewish king of the time (Herod the Great & Agrippa I), if any? Why not: Agrippa II was nominating the high priests in Jerusalem, even if he was not in control of Judea.
Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:Here is a description of the function of the Jewish ethnarch in Alexandria, from Strabo being quoted by Josephus:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... g=original
Was that ethnarch nominated by the Jewish king of the time (Herod the Great & Agrippa I), if any? Why not: Agrippa II was nominating the high priests in Jerusalem, even if he was not in control of Judea.

• AJ 14:116-118
  and it hath come to pass that Egypt and Cyrene, as having the same governors, and a great number of other nations, imitate their way of living, and maintain great bodies of these Jews in a peculiar manner, and grow up to greater prosperity with them, and make use of the same laws with that nation also. Accordingly, the Jews have places assigned them in Egypt, wherein they inhabit, besides what is peculiarly allotted to this nation at Alexandria, which is a large part of that city. There is also an ethnarch allowed them, who governs the nation, and distributes justice to them, and takes care of their contracts, and of the laws to them belonging, as if he were the ruler of a free republic. In Egypt, therefore, this nation is powerful, because the Jews were originally Egyptians, and because the land wherein they inhabit, since they went thence, is near to Egypt. They also removed into Cyrene, because that this land adjoined to the government of Egypt, as well as does Judea, or rather was formerly under the same government.

This makes a case for the separatist nature of the Jews in the lands of Egypt and Cyrene and it is on account of this that the Jews were given a "governor" (ethnarch, according to Josephus). There is no reason to think that such a position, if it were indeed called an "ethnarch", was anything other than a special concession for the Jews in Egypt and Cyrene. The position was the status quo before Augustus set up a 38-member council in place of previous arrangements.

• Philo: In Flaccum, 74
  [Flaccus] arrested thirty-eight members of our council of elders, which was appointed to manage Jewish affairs after the death of the genarch by the saviour and benefactor, Augustus

Was that ethnarch nominated by the Jewish king of the time (Herod the Great & Agrippa I), if any?

But as it stands you are becoming like mountainman (or now 'lucius charinus') and his proposition. You have a series of 'why nots?'

1. Is there any evidence that the Nabateans ruled Damscus. No. You originally said 'why not?'
2. Is there any evidence that ethnarchs were associated with or appointed by a foreign king while the Romans ruled a city? No. You say 'why not?'
3. Is there any evidence that the ethnarch of the Jewish community at Alexandria appointed by King Agrippa? No. You say 'why not?'

In Flaccus when Agrippa comes to Alexandria there is absolutely no sense whatsoever that he has anything to do with the appointment of the ethnarch. In fact, he has to pretend that he was shipwrecked in order to visit his community in stealth. Surely if Agrippa had authority in Alexandria he wouldn't have had a stronger hand during the persecution of the community there. Also here is the Jewish Encyclopedia article on the subject:

The head of the Jewish community of Alexandria had the title of "ethnarch" (Strabo, in "Ant." xiv. 7, § 2), and was probably identical with the Alabarch. This may be gathered from a decree of Claudius permitting the succession of ethnarchs (ib. xix. 5, § 2). But Philo says expressly that at the time of Augustus the gerusia took over the functions of the "genarch" ("In Flaccum," § 10), and γευάρχης here is doubtless equivalent to ἐθυάρχης. Philo must refer to some interval during which, the permission of Augustus not having been obtained, no ethnarch could be appointed.

The authority for the ethnarch came from Caesar not king Agrippa. The title was also assumed by rulers in Judea (Hyrcanus II etc)