arnoldo wrote:Additionally, Caligula may've had his reasons for turing a blind eye towards Aretas' misadventures considering how the Nabataeans helped his father, Germanicus.
This conjecture has already been talked about here. It the principle of making soup by waving a few bones over some cold water.
arnoldo wrote:The following article available to read in full at JSTOR for free may be useful for anyone seeking to understand the politics involving Aretas, Antipas and Vitellius.
Perhaps you could have saved the effort wasted with the musings above and just quoted some of the argumentation from the article... or are you saying that the article really presented such ramblings?
Ok, the article examines four conflicting hypothesis explaining Aretas' possible relation to Damascus.
1. Aretas's ethnarch, a local sheikh, is seeking to apprehend Paul guarded Damascus from the outside.
2. Aretas's ethnarch was only in charge of Nabataean community in Damascus as an important local trade representative, although also with a degree of police authority
3. Aretas's ethnarch was indeed the governor of Damascus, but received that post as Gaius gifted the city to Aretas's care on his accession, part of a deliberate frontier policy withing which territory was delegated by him to client kings.
4. Aretas seized Damascus in the immediate aftermath of his successful war with Herod Antipas and appointed an ethnarch to govern it, although he did not long enjroy control of the city.
arnoldo wrote:
Both ancient and modern rulers have a tendency to take action "tantamount to suicide." From the Jews revolting against Roman rule to Saddam Hussein trying to expand his sphere of influence into Kuwait not so long ago. Why should Aretas be any different?
spin wrote:Well, let's see... hmm, I guess he was neither a religio-political movement of the masses that blindly rose up against Roman oppression and gain liberation nor was he misinformed by April Glaspie. You need to work on your analogical skills.
Just because there are conflicting hypothesis does not mean that Aretas never had control to any degree of Damascus. By way of analogy, currently there are many conflicting hypothesis on how life originated on earth ranging from Clay Hypothesis to the Soup Theory. Despite these conflicting theories of abiogenesis life did arise on earth. How can you be so sure that Aretas never had control of Damascus to any degree for however a short period of time?
Last edited by arnoldo on Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
TedM wrote:re that coin claimed to be 37AD, based on Pompei date: 37AD is exactly 100 years after 63BC. Could this explain a mistaken interpretation by those that say a coin was found that dates to 37AD? Or just coincidence? If there is actually a 101 date, then again we have another possible coincidence since that in Pompei calendar is 37AD..the wiki doensn't say that it says Aretas IV, just that it has the image of Aretas. Agree with Peter that sounds unlikely to be that of Aretas IV.
Sorry, could you point me to the exact place where the claim was made? I couldn't find where the coin was first mentioned in the thread. All this to and fro without an exact reference doesn't allow independent checking.
Great, thanks. I've now checked it out and it is an erroneous attribution by the Wiki editor, so I have removed it from the article and that's the end of the nonsense for a while.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
arnoldo wrote:Just because there are conflicting hypothesis does not mean that Aretas never had control to any degree of Damascus.
It means that at least three of them are wrong.
arnoldo wrote:By way of analogy, currently there are many conflicting hypothesis on how life originated on earth ranging from Clay Hypothesis to the Soup Theory. Despite these conflicting theories of abiogenesis life did arise on earth. How can you be so sure that Aretas never had control of Damascus to any degree for however a short period of time?
Umm, it was, as part of Philip's territory, a direct Roman possession after the death of Philip and before Caligula gave it to Agrippa I. Caligula didn't give it to both Agrippa and Aretas, nor did Aretas take it from the Romans.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
This ethnarch was in Damascus, not without. And he guarded the whole city, not just a few gates. You know what your conclusion is and you change the data to get there.
I did not say the ethnarch was without Damascus. Preventing Paul to escape Damascus only necessitated watching the city gates. The city walls were supposed to prevent people to get in or out of a city except through the city gates.
I did not change the data, but I did not add up things which are not in it.
You were for some reason talking of a few gates and a clandestine operation to kidnap someone.
Bernard Muller wrote:
henchmen involved in some clandestine kidnapping ... an illegal operation by a foreign agent
Why do you assume that? There was no city police in these days. Arrests could be made by people themselves, or hired men by wealthy gentry. Then the ones arrested were charged and brought to the justice system.
Because while some of that is true, it involves people who belong in the context, though we are actually talking about an emissary of Nabataea and not people who hold power in Damascus, be they the wealthy or the powers of Rome, to whom the town belonged before it passed to Agrippa I.
Last edited by spin on Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Because while some of that is true, it involves people who belong in the context, though we are actually talking about an emissary of Nabataea and not people who hold power in Damascus, be they the wealthy or the powers of Rome,
If that was a problem, the charge, after the arrest, could have been handled by a citizen of Damascus and a subject of Rome.
the powers of Rome, to whom the town belonged before it passed to Agrippa I
Where did you get the city of Damascus was under Agrippa I at some times?
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
You don't need to mention it after having chosen your conjecture of a representative of Aretas IV who was not in control of Damascus laying in wait for Paul at a few gates.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Because while some of that is true, it involves people who belong in the context, though we are actually talking about an emissary of Nabataea and not people who hold power in Damascus, be they the wealthy or the powers of Rome,
If that was a problem, the charge, after the arrest, could have been handled by a citizen of Damascus and a subject of Rome.
You are supposed to keep your hypotheses as simple as possible.
Bernard Muller wrote:
the powers of Rome, to whom the town belonged before it passed to Agrippa I
Where did you get the city of Damascus was under Agrippa I at some times?
Damascus was part of the territory of Philip, which Caligula gave to Agrippa I, though Philip's territory was directly controlled by Rome for the period between the death of the tetrarch and the reassignment of the land.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Damascus might not mean Damascus in Syria. That name is used as a cipher for the Qumran community in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Qumran region was raided and occupied by Aretas IV in his war against Antipas.
Of course, that still leaves the question of what window he got lowered from. This is a digital reconstruction of the Qumran site.
There are upper story rooms with windows a person could be conceivably be imprisoned in and lowered from.
Why would he have been there, you ask. Fuck if I know. Depends on what the place actually was at that time. If it was occupied, it could have been serving as a military outpost. But the Qumran community did apparently call itself "Damascus" at some point.
