Paul in Arabia

[ChristMyth]

Paul writes in one of his letters that after he was converted on the road to Damascus, that he traveled to Arabia, spent three years, went back to Damascus, and then to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James.

My question is: Why Arabia? Is there any teaching going on in Arabia that could have influenced his latter writings? Is there any answer to this?

Thanks

Christmyth

[Laura D.]

Paul writes in one of his letters that after he was converted on the road to Damascus, that he traveled to Arabia, spent three years, went back to Damascus, and then to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James.

My question is: Why Arabia? Is there any teaching going on in Arabia that could have influenced his latter writings? Is there any answer to this?

Thanks

Christmyth

Paul may have visited the Nabataean state (as the Jewish people viewed Arabia during the relevant period). Take a look at Wikipedia's Paul of Tarsus Entry. Josephus wrote a bit about the Nabataean State and its leaders. Take a look at at his Antiquities and the Jewish War. A Roman trade route ran from the Mediterranean into Petra. The Nabataeans spoke an Arabic dialect, but used the Aramaic script. Aramaic was the learning and trade language, but some of the early inscriptions of proper names and expressions (such a ghayr ... other than) show an Arabic vernacular.

The Nabataen State extended to Damascus. The only literary remains that I know of from the Nabataean State are inscriptions and graffiti in the Sinai and Trans-Jordan. Plus, they found scrolls in the caves south of En Gedi written in Greek, Aramaic, and Nabataean. These scrolls included biblical fragments, psalms, various legal documents, and a lost Greek translation of the minor prophets. These scrolls might date to the 1st Century CE (but that is more guess than anything on my part, it's just my impression that most of the scrolls found in that area date from the 1st Century CE).

I'm sure others can be more detailed about exactly what teaching was going on and where specifically Paul may have visited.

God bless,


Laura

[aa5874]

Paul writes in one of his letters that after he was converted on the road to Damascus, that he traveled to Arabia, spent three years, went back to Damascus, and then to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James.

Arabia! That's strange. In the book called Acts, Saul/Paul was converted on the road to Damascus, recovered from blindness and was baptized and started to preach the Gospel in Damascus with certain disciples.

The Jews then tried to kill Saul/Paul and he escaped and fled to Jerusalem with the help of the disciples. Saul/Paul even tried to join with the disciples but they were afraid of him.

In any event, Paul was in and out of Jerusalem, preaching the word of God. See Acts 9 for Saul's version.

The Arabian journey may have been a late interpolation, but I hear that the book called Acts is basically a fairy tale.

[ChristMyth]

Not according to Galatians 1

13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when God, who set me apart from birth[a] and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

Thanks for the info, Laura. I was curious about this.

[aa5874]

Not according to Galatians 1

You have just un-earthed another Paul. Now, which one is the fraud, the one in Acts or the one in Galations, or both?

[Ben C Smith]

N. T. Wright has an interesting article on Paul, Arabia, and Elijah (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Paul_Arabia_Elijah.pdf) (in .pdf). I do not know whether to agree or to disagree, but it is a good article.

In some respects, the Arabia debate comes down to why we imagine Paul went to Arabia. Did he go there to minister in some capacity? Or did he go there to be alone and commune with God in some way? Wright basically argues for a form of the latter.

Ben.

[spin]

The Nabataen State extended to Damascus.
This was for a very brief period before the arrival of Pompey in Damascus, when it became part of the newly founded Roman province of Syria. After that period the Nabataean state shrank back to south of Perea. The area south of Damascus including Gamalitis was the territory of Philip. Phasaelis daughter of Aretas IV and deposed wife Herod Antipas fled south across the border from Machaerus on the other side of the Dead Sea to Nabataean land.


spin

[Laura D.]

This was for a very brief period before the arrival of Pompey in Damascus, when it became part of the newly founded Roman province of Syria. After that period the Nabataean state shrank back to south of Perea. The area south of Damascus including Gamalitis was the territory of Philip. Phasaelis daughter of Aretas IV and deposed wife Herod Antipas fled south across the border from Machaerus on the other side of the Dead Sea to Nabataean land.


spin

Thank you Spin for the clarification.

I had understood that in 64 BC, Pompey and the Romans annexed the western part of Syria. But that in the year 37, the Roman Emperor Caligula transferred Damascus into Nabataean control by decree and that then the Nabataean king Aretas IV Philopatris ruled Damascus from his capital Petra. But that around the year 106, Nabataea was conquered by the Romans, and Damascus returned to Roman control.

Yet another instance of Wikipedia being mistaken.

God bless,


Laura

[spin]

Thank you Spin for the clarification.

I had understood that in 64 BC, Pompey and the Romans annexed the western part of Syria.
Check AJ 14.2.3.


But that in the year 37, the Roman Emperor Caligula transferred Damascus into Nabataean control by decree and that then the Nabataean king Aretas IV Philopatris ruled Damascus from his capital Petra. But that around the year 106, Nabataea was conquered by the Romans, and Damascus returned to Roman control.
Having waltzed so often on the status of Damascus after the war between Aretas and Herod Antipas (late 36 CE), I know most of the sources on the subject. Here's a challenge: find a single ancient contemporary or near contemporary source for the claim that "Caligula transferred Damascus into Nabataean control". (You don't really need to check Suetonius, Tacitus or Josephus as they don't refer to it.)

Yet another instance of Wikipedia being mistaken.
Sad, isn't it?


spin

[jakejonesiv]

N. T. Wright has an interesting article on Paul, Arabia, and Elijah (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Paul_Arabia_Elijah.pdf) (in .pdf). I do not know whether to agree or to disagree, but it is a good article.

In some respects, the Arabia debate comes down to why we imagine Paul went to Arabia. Did he go there to minister in some capacity? Or did he go there to be alone and commune with God in some way? Wright basically argues for a form of the latter.

Ben.

Hi Ben,

NT Wright does a good job in that article, but he doesn't take it quite far enough.

Paul and Elijah both set out to purge the enemies of the "true" faith, the prophets of Baal for Elijah (1 Kings 18) and the church for Paul (Gal 1:13,23).

Elijah is turned aside (1 Kings 19:3) as is Paul.

Now here is the key part; Elijah immediately goes to Horeb, the mountain of God (1 Kings 19:8). Likewise,Paul turns aside into Arabia (Gal 1:17), where Mount Sinai is supposed to be located * (Gal 4:25). It is on the Mount that Paul would naturally receive his alleged divine revelation, Gal. 1:11-12.

After that, both Elijah (1 Kings 19:15) and Paul (Gal. 1:17) go to Damascus.

Thus, according to the book of Galatians, Paul spent three years on Mount Sinai/Horeb (in Median according to Exodus 3:1, present day Saudi Arabia, "Hagar country") receiving the revelation of Jesus Christ. Here he learned the mysteries "hidden from the foundation of
the world."

The deeds of the historical Paul, like Jesus, vanish away when scrutinized. They turn out to be nothing more than recast OT tales.

Jake Jones IV

* Note: (The Holy Mountain is called "Horeb" according to E and "Sinai" according to J.)

[gstafleu]

You have just un-earthed another Paul. Now, which one is the fraud, the one in Acts or the one in Galations, or both?
Many people would agree that Acts is (mostly) fictional. Most people hold that the Paul from the Epistles is real, in a "Well, somebody must have written Paul's letters" kind of way. But some think even that Paul is fictional, see for example The Falsified Paul (http://www.radikalkritik.de/FabricatedJHC.pdf) by Hermann Detering. Plus, as Jake already pointed out, the parallels between Paul and Elijah described in the article by N.T. Wright can be seen as evidence of a fictional Paul: the author of Galatians inserted a plot element from 1 Kings into his story.

Gerard

[Doug Shaver]

Paul writes in one of his letters that after he was converted on the road to Damascus
Not exactly. He says he was converted, but he says nothing about where it happened. The Damascus Road story was invented by the author of Acts -- or passed on to him after someone else invented it.

[Laura D.]

Check AJ 14.2.3.



Having waltzed so often on the status of Damascus after the war between Aretas and Herod Antipas (late 36 CE), I know most of the sources on the subject. Here's a challenge: find a single ancient contemporary or near contemporary source for the claim that "Caligula transferred Damascus into Nabataean control". (You don't really need to check Suetonius, Tacitus or Josephus as they don't refer to it.)


Sad, isn't it?


spin

I looked, but found no original source support for the cite on the Internet. We just see the same Wiki phrase popping up at various sites.

God bless,

Laura

[Solo]

N. T. Wright has an interesting article on Paul, Arabia, and Elijah (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Paul_Arabia_Elijah.pdf) (in .pdf). I do not know whether to agree or to disagree, but it is a good article.

In some respects, the Arabia debate comes down to why we imagine Paul went to Arabia. Did he go there to minister in some capacity? Or did he go there to be alone and commune with God in some way? Wright basically argues for a form of the latter.

Ben.

Hi Ben,
Wright is not alone in reading Damascus as a code-name. Eisenman (in James the Brother of Jesus) argues vehemently for the connection of 'Damascus' with the wilderness east of Jordan (which apparently had a Qumran settlement ( http://www.thesecretmagdalene.com/qumran.html) in it). In that he is quite believable. This would also clear up the problem with the Nabatean reference that Laura had.

But it's a tough call, I agree. Damascus (if not Jericho) is known as the world's oldest city and prophecies against it were made often by the prophets (Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos), so it is quite possible that Paul went back there to make sure he had his revelations right.

Jiri

[LanternBearer]

The several Diaspora of Jews that sent them out of the Levant, spread them to the East, as far as India and China; to the west, as far as the Romans traveled; to the South back into Egypt and Ethiopia; and North into the lands just south of the Caspian Sea and into Persia and Arabia.

Alexander drove a large path east all the way into India. He was not breaking new ground, he was following the old trade routes. Those trade routes has seen the passage and settlement of Jews for generations. They were the source of the pilgrims “speaking many tongues” that traveled great distances to be in Jerusalem for Pesach at least once in their lives.

The Sunday school notion of the little Jewish enclave in Jerusalem being the only Jews extant at the time of Roman occupation is ludicrous. Paul's eventual treks and visits to the "Churches" was a result of there being Jews in far off places who kept up with Temple lore by way of the trading and pilgrimage Jews. Those congregations of Diaspora Jews were reform minded and inclined to be less legalistic than the Pharisaic center at Jerusalem. Paul was one of many visiting authoritative figures from Jerusalem. Those same congregations had also been visited by the radicals and the reform minded. In Paul’s time, the radicals were the Jesus people and the Nazarenes. Historically, there is evidence of the presence of Jews in Arabia. (http://www.dangoor.com/71page33.html#Arab) And, why wouldn't there be?. The Diaspora was not exactly a press gang that carried all the "captive" Jews off to the same place. Work a day Jews exploded out of the Levant into every direction when the invading armies of the various kings would be heard of coming.

Paul’s eventually documented route took him to the Northeast and then to the west. The three year suspected hiatus may have been at first an escape from Temple authorities. If one is suddenly taken by the very popular Jesus movement, what else is there to do but take it on the lam. He may have had just enough exposure to the heresy of that Jesus troublemaker and his followers to have given him the confidence to strike out a path of new conviction.

The path that Paul took and documented was dotted with Jewish congregations less inclined to be dominated by the Jerusalem Temple culture. They certainly had regular visitors from there, and Paul would have been just another of the visitors. By the time he gets things going, the ground is well broken before him with the other Jesus people that had arrived before him.

Paul was not a Jerusalem Jew. He was a Greco-Roman Jew, from Tarsus, who had built up his reputation and bona fides in Jerusalem and was a road man for the Temple authority. He probably spoke Latin, Koine Greek, Aramaic and ritual Hebrew. He was essentially a "made man" or enforcer for the Temple orthodoxy.

One of the reasons that there is little history of the eastern Tran Jordan churches is that they had been subject to much house cleaning and heresy excising in the days of the young Roman statist church that emerged in Constantinople. Much of what has been translated by the pre-Christian reformist and mystery cultists had come to be tinged with the Jesus story. Those Trans-Jordan mystery churches were far too radical in their doctrine and canon to be incorporated into the emerging Orthodoxy of the Greco-Roman Church Fathers”. Some did remain viable and have survived in minor forms into the 21st Century.

In my travels, on other business, in that part of the world, I have sat for hours and days in conversation with old holy men and translators. There are many stories and tangled mysteries that are yet to be brought to light about the presence of Jews and then Christians in the coastal areas of Arabia, the Red Sea, and the Atlantic coast of Africa.

I would recommend the work of Burton Mack (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&c2coff=1&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-39%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=Burton+Mack+&btnG=Search) and Elaine Pagels (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&c2coff=1&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-39%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=Elaine+Pagels&btnG=Search) for another view of the history of that time that does not have an orthodox axe to grind. Further, there is much to be gleaned from the work of the Jesus Seminar and the various scholars engaged in that. I would also like to recommend the work of Neil Douglas-Klotz and Kamae A Miller (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-39,GGGL:en&q=Neil+Douglas-Klotz+and+Kamae+A+Miller) for their writing and translations of Aramaic texts. Aramaic was the language of YSHA.

The story is ever unfolding. The construct that is the western church is much too heavily loaded for me. If one is able to digest and practice the teaching of the three years of al fresco lectures, then there is more than enough for a lifetime of contemplation, meditation and practice.

Lantern Bearer
Please, do be attentive, be intelligent, be reasonable, be responsible.

[aa5874]

Many people would agree that Acts is (mostly) fictional. Most people hold that the Paul from the Epistles is real, in a "Well, somebody must have written Paul's letters" kind of way. But some think even that Paul is fictional, see for example The Falsified Paul (http://www.radikalkritik.de/FabricatedJHC.pdf) by Hermann Detering. Plus, as Jake already pointed out, the parallels between Paul and Elijah described in the article by N.T. Wright can be seen as evidence of a fictional Paul: the author of Galatians inserted a plot element from 1 Kings into his story.

Gerard

When you say 'most people' hold Paul from the Epistles is real, are you refering to people in the Middle East? I agree that some people believe everyone in the Bible is real, but I don't know how you could say that most people hold that Paul is real.

As far as I understand, the Epistles claimed to be written by Paul, were actually written by different authors. No-one actually knows Paul or which Epistles were actually written by Paul. All we have is a name, just like the other books of the NT. www.religioustolerance.org

The entire NT is littered with erroneous information, to claim that Paul or anyone wrote anything is always questionable.

[gstafleu]

When you say 'most people' hold Paul from the Epistles is real, are you refering to people in the Middle East?
No, nothing that wide ranging. Just people who pop up regularly around here, either in use or in mention. You read a lot about an MJ, but not as much about an MP. I'm sure that will start, though.

Doherty e.g. seems to assume an HP. My guess would be that that's not so much a result of study and conviction, but rather stems from simply not having thought much about it.

I'm not aware of anyone else but Detering having addressed the matter in great detail. But then I don't know much. Maybe some other Forumist knows more?

Gerard

[spin]

"Caligula transferred Damascus into Nabataean control"I looked, but found no original source support for the cite on the Internet. We just see the same Wiki phrase popping up at various sites.
My guess is that it is derived from an analysis which attempts to justify Aretas being mentioned in the narrative abobut Paul being lowered down the wall of Damascus. That's the only place I've come across the claim, but if the claim can be sustained from ancient sources it would supply a historical peg on which to hang Paul's time of writing.


spin

[andrewcriddle]

My guess is that it is derived from an analysis which attempts to justify Aretas being mentioned in the narrative abobut Paul being lowered down the wall of Damascus. That's the only place I've come across the claim, but if the claim can be sustained from ancient sources it would supply a historical peg on which to hang Paul's time of writing.


spin

I think you're right that there is no direct evidence at all that Caligula gave Aretas control of Damascus.

However in terms of their general policy it is prima-facie much more plausible that Caligula would do so than that Tiberius would.

IE IF Aretas ever administered Damascus with the official approval of the Emperor then this almost certainly happened under Caligula not Tiberius.

Andrew Criddle

[spin]

I think you're right that there is no direct evidence at all that Caligula gave Aretas control of Damascus.

However in terms of their general policy it is prima-facie much more plausible that Caligula would do so than that Tiberius would.

IE IF Aretas ever administered Damascus with the official approval of the Emperor then this almost certainly happened under Caligula not Tiberius.
That's certainly true. Tiberius had ordered Vitellius to go and get Aretas IV's head over Aretas's war with Herod Antipas. Fortunately, Tiberius died and Vitellius didn't feel any sympathy for Herod Antipas.

However, how would Aretas have arrived at Damascus assuming he had been given control of it by Caligula? Would he have arrived there through the territory of Philip, ie Hauran, Trachonitis etc., which Caligula had just given to Agrippa?


spin

[andrewcriddle]

That's certainly true. Tiberius had ordered Vitellius to go and get Aretas IV's head over Aretas's war with Herod Antipas. Fortunately, Tiberius died and Vitellius didn't feel any sympathy for Herod Antipas.

However, how would Aretas have arrived at Damascus assuming he had been given control of it by Caligula? Would he have arrived there through the territory of Philip, ie Hauran, Trachonitis etc., which Caligula had just given to Agrippa?


spin

The Geography here is not my strong point but the issue seems to be who at this time held Bostra/Bosra.

If it was at this time part of the Nabatean kingdom, which IMO seems likely, then Aretas would likely have had access to Damascus.

If Bosra/Bostra had been part of the tetrarchy of Philip (which is possible but IMHO unilkely) and had been transferred to Agrippa then access to Damascus by Aretas would be much more problematic.

Andrew Criddle

[spin]

The Geography here is not my strong point but the issue seems to be who at this time held Bostra/Bosra.
My thought was not that it was impossible to get there, but that it was so far out of Aretas IV's way. The land east of Perea is desert. The land east of the Decapolis is desert. The land east of Gaulanitis is desert. Things were different at the time of Aretas III when he had direct access through these areas.

If it was at this time part of the Nabatean kingdom, which IMO seems likely,...
Andrew, you've got to be kidding me. We've just had Aretas IV causing border trouble for Herod Antipas in Perea (Gabalitis), then hightailing it back to Petra on the news of Vitellius on his way. Clearly Aretas was restricted to the region east of the Dead Sea and further south. What could possibly make you think that Aretas IV held Bostra?

...then Aretas would likely have had access to Damascus.

If Bosra/Bostra had been part of the tetrarchy of Philip (which is possible but IMHO unilkely) and had been transferred to Agrippa then access to Damascus by Aretas would be much more problematic.
AJ 18.4.6:

About this time it was that Philip, Herod's brother, departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulanitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty-seven years.
Trachonitis and Batanea certainly go as far east as Bostra, and I'm not sure but I don't think Philip's territory had Bostra. However at the change of emperor that territory went into the hands of Agrippa and I cannot see for the life of me why Caligula would do any favours toward Aretas IV, seeing that Aretas had only recently caused a ruckus and that Agrippa had just gained Philip's lands from Rome and I can't see Caligula putting Agrippa at risk by giving anything to Aretas.

I don't mind contemplating Caligula giving Damascus to Aretas if you have some tangible sign to make you posit the idea. But as I see it, it seems so unlikely given the geo-political state of play in the Trans-Jordan in 37 CE. So, you do need to have something to make you think that Caligula may have given Aretas Damascus, and that something needs to be independent from the Pauline reference, which is really the issue at the centre of the discussion of Aretas having Damascus.


spin

[andrewcriddle]

Andrew, you've got to be kidding me. We've just had Aretas IV causing border trouble for Herod Antipas in Perea (Gabalitis), then hightailing it back to Petra on the news of Vitellius on his way. Clearly Aretas was restricted to the region east of the Dead Sea and further south. What could possibly make you think that Aretas IV held Bostra?




Bostra was certainly earlier a part of the Nabatean kingdom and when the kingdom was annexed by Trajan to become province Arabia Petraea Bostra was the new capital.

It would be simplest (though not necessarily correct) to have Bostra regarded as Nabatean at all relevant times.

If you agree that Philips tetrarchy probably didn't include Bostra then who did hold it if not Aretas ?

It is unlikely IMHO to have been under direct Roman control.

Andrew Criddle

[spin]

Bostra was certainly earlier a part of the Nabatean kingdom and when the kingdom was annexed by Trajan to become province Arabia Petraea Bostra was the new capital.

It would be simplest (though not necessarily correct) to have Bostra regarded as Nabatean at all relevant times.

If you agree that Philips tetrarchy probably didn't include Bostra then who did hold it if not Aretas ?

It is unlikely IMHO to have been under direct Roman control.
There were actually two cities called Bosra. A clue to this is that Bosra is called the "first city" of the Nabataeans, who originate in south Moab, yet Busra ash-Shams is south-east of Damascus. The first city must lie in the home land of the Nabataeans and therefore not too far from Petra. Look at the following map (http://www.oki-regensburg.de/bostra.htm):

http://nikowy.homepage.t-online.de/bostra.jpg

These two cities seem to have been long confused, or, better, conflated, with the southern Bozrah being forgotten about. In his judgment on Edom Jeremiah (49:13, 22) mentions Bozrah, as does Isaiah.

We both have been thinking of Bostra in the region of Damascus.

I was confused myself as to the location of Bostra, thinking it much more to the east of Damascus and not so far south. This town would have been in the southern part of Philip's territory. To understand where Trachonitis is in regard to Damascus, look at this map (http://www.biblecentre.net/reference/maps/maps/img/maps_119_0.jpg). But for lots of effort I can't find a map which shows both Philip's territory and Bostra together. Nevertheless, one would likely have to cross the territory of Philip, now of Agrippa, to get to Damascus.


spin

[ChristMyth]

After reading most of the posts above, not only am I in complete confusion about the OP, but I'm feeling like someone is missing out on a great soap opera possibility :D

[spin]

After reading most of the posts above, not only am I in complete confusion about the OP,
C'mon, you know what you were writing about!

but I'm feeling like someone is missing out on a great soap opera possibility :D
Dunno about that, but I'm sure you can appreciate taking one of those innumerable conjectures presented as quasi fact and pulling the legs off it.


spin

[andrewcriddle]

There were actually two cities called Bosra. A clue to this is that Bosra is called the "first city" of the Nabataeans, who originate in south Moab, yet Busra ash-Shams is south-east of Damascus. The first city must lie in the home land of the Nabataeans and therefore not too far from Petra. Look at the following map (http://www.oki-regensburg.de/bostra.htm):


These two cities seem to have been long confused, or, better, conflated, with the southern Bozrah being forgotten about. In his judgment on Edom Jeremiah (49:13, 22) mentions Bozrah, as does Isaiah.

We both have been thinking of Bostra in the region of Damascus.

I was confused myself as to the location of Bostra, thinking it much more to the east of Damascus and not so far south. This town would have been in the southern part of Philip's territory. To understand where Trachonitis is in regard to Damascus, look at this map (http://www.biblecentre.net/reference/maps/maps/img/maps_119_0.jpg). But for lots of effort I can't find a map which shows both Philip's territory and Bostra together. Nevertheless, one would likely have to cross the territory of Philip, now of Agrippa, to get to Damascus.


spin

There are what seem to be reasonably reliable articles on Wikipedia about the two Bosras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozrah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosra

The Nabatean Bostra that became the capital of the Roman province of Arabia seems to be Bostra as Sham.
See also
http://whc.unesco.org/sites/22.htm

According to this
http://www.oki-regensburg.de/bostra.htm
Bostra of Edom was at most a village during the Roman Empire.
Its metropolitan status seems to be post-Islamic.

Andrew Criddle

[rlogan]

It is rather like heading off to Bangkok right after your born-again conversion.

[spin]

There are what seem to be reasonably reliable articles on Wikipedia about the two Bosras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozrah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosra


The Nabatean Bostra that became the capital of the Roman province of Arabia seems to be Bostra as Sham.
See also
http://whc.unesco.org/sites/22.htm

According to this
http://www.oki-regensburg.de/bostra.htm
Bostra of Edom was at most a village during the Roman Empire.
Its metropolitan status seems to be post-Islamic.
I did look at all of these before I posted, Andrew.

There is only one issue regarding Bosra, the first city of the Nabataeans. This means before the Romans arrived. Where would the first city of the Nabataeans have been? Would it have been in the Nabataean heartland or would it have been totally out of the Nabataean context? Both Pliny the Elder and Strabo place the Nabataeans well to the south in the context of Idumaea and such.

As for the location of the territory of Philip and of Bostra ash-Sham, I've already shown that the territory of Philip blocks access to Damascus from the south. Ultimately, Bostra is a red herring on your part.

--o0o--

There is no tangible reason to suppose that Caligula would have given anything to Aretas IV. There is no easy way to get access to Damascus from the deep south. This proposition of Caligula giving Damascus to Aretas has all the earmarks of a modern christian fabrication, based on the need to explain away 2 Cor 11:32. Doesn't it to you? Isn't this an emperor's new clothes job?


spin

[andrewcriddle]

I did look at all of these before I posted, Andrew.

There is only one issue regarding Bosra, the first city of the Nabataeans. This means before the Romans arrived. Where would the first city of the Nabataeans have been? Would it have been in the Nabataean heartland or would it have been totally out of the Nabataean context? Both Pliny the Elder and Strabo place the Nabataeans well to the south in the context of Idumaea and such.
I'm genuinely unclear what the point of dispute here is.

I suggested that Bostra near Damascus was in Nabatean control at all relevant times and proposed as supporting evidence the importance of Bostra in the pre-Roman Nabataean kingdom.

Either you are arguing that Bostra near Damascus was peripheral to the Nabaean world until the Roman annexation, in which case IIUC there is archaeological evidence to the contrary, or I'm not sure what point you are making.

(It is quite possible that Bostra, although influenced by Nabataea, was not under its political control at the time of Aretas IV but I'm not sure how the interesting material you have presented bears on this one way or the other.)

As for the location of the territory of Philip and of Bostra ash-Sham, I've already shown that the territory of Philip blocks access to Damascus from the south. Ultimately, Bostra is a red herring on your part.

Rightly or wrongly I'm afraid I haven't been convinced. It seems to depend on the precise limits of areas like trachonitis about which I have been unable to find clear evidence.


There is no tangible reason to suppose that Caligula would have given anything to Aretas IV. There is no easy way to get access to Damascus from the deep south. This proposition of Caligula giving Damascus to Aretas has all the earmarks of a modern christian fabrication, based on the need to explain away 2 Cor 11:32. Doesn't it to you? Isn't this an emperor's new clothes job?


spin

I quite agree that without the biblical data one would not think that Aretas controlled Damascus under Caligula.

However, it seems IMO entirely plausible that Caligula would wish to support Aretas in the same way as he supported other client kings and if Aretas already held Bostra then extending his control to Damascus would be a plausible gesture of favour.

Andrew Criddle

[jakejonesiv]

No, nothing that wide ranging. Just people who pop up regularly around here, either in use or in mention. You read a lot about an MJ, but not as much about an MP. I'm sure that will start, though.

Doherty e.g. seems to assume an HP. My guess would be that that's not so much a result of study and conviction, but rather stems from simply not having thought much about it.

I'm not aware of anyone else but Detering having addressed the matter in great detail. But then I don't know much. Maybe some other Forumist knows more?

Gerard

Earl Doherty is well aware of the "MP" position. He chooses not to embrace it. In the Jesus Mysteries list nearly two years ago, there was a fascinating discussion between Earl Doherty and Hermann Detering on these issues.

H. Detering is merely the latest in the long line of "Dutch Radical" criticism starting with Bruno Bauer. A brief history is given at The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles (http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html). The defining issue is Paul as a second century fabrication. Perhaps someday the works of G.A. Van den Bergh van Eysinga will become readily available in English.

Typically, the reaction of mainline scholarship is to run away from the issue. The reaction seems to be "if we give up the historical Paul, what we think we know about Christian origins disappears! It is much better to accept Paul at face value, to believe that what we read in our Bibles today reflects accurately what flowed from the pen of a first century preacher. This is an entirely understandable reaction. But then one reads the supposedly authentic biographical words of Paul, when suddenly the hand of the weaver of tales* is revealed, and the frame of reference shifts jarringly. What is real and what is illusion?

Jake Jones IV


P.S. Some D.R. have historically held to the possibility of a Historical Jesus, although that position is nowadays considered naive. The connection of Paul to Simon Magus is extremely interesting, but cannot be considered proven.

]* Paul is said to go to Damascus merely because Elijah is sent to Damascus after his Theophany on the Holy Mountain.

[spin]

I'm genuinely unclear what the point of dispute here is.

I suggested that Bostra near Damascus was in Nabatean control at all relevant times and proposed as supporting evidence the importance of Bostra in the pre-Roman Nabataean kingdom.
The Bosra near Damascus is not the Nabataean Bosra. It was in the territory of Philip as I understand the geography, as it was part of the Trachonitis. Look at this map (http://www.studylight.org/se/maps/normal/103.jpg), which is better than that I referred to earlier to understand the extend of Trachonitis and Auranitis where Bostra is.

Either you are arguing that Bostra near Damascus was peripheral to the Nabaean world until the Roman annexation, in which case IIUC there is archaeological evidence to the contrary, or I'm not sure what point you are making.
All one can show is some similarity of culture, which is only to be expected as the area of Philip was mostly Arab in population. This will include same or similar gods.

(I've just had the occasion to look over AJ 16.9.1, which talks both of the Trachonites and Sylleus the Nabataean functionary. The territory came into the hands of Herod when Caesar (Augustus, I guess) gave it to him to "domesticate" the area, as there were Arab brigands. Sylleus gives some of them hospitality. I don't know how it reflects on the Bostra question though.)

(It is quite possible that Bostra, although influenced by Nabataea, was not under its political control at the time of Aretas IV but I'm not sure how the interesting material you have presented bears on this one way or the other.)
As I've already said, the first city of the Nabataeans isn't going to be in other people's home territory. Herod was given control of the Trachonitis. Philip held it along with Auranitis (see AJ 17.11.4 for the extent) until around 35 CE, when it was absorbed into Syria, then given to Agrippa. How could this city be Nabataean durign any of that time??

Rightly or wrongly I'm afraid I haven't been convinced. It seems to depend on the precise limits of areas like trachonitis about which I have been unable to find clear evidence.
You might find Strabo 16.2.16 (&20) some help.

The location of Bosra/Bostra is fairly simple because a town exists there today, you can find it on a decent map of Syria. It's in the middle of the area of Trachonitis. And it's about time you looked at a map of the area. You'll see it on the map I link above.

One thing is interesting: neither Strabo nor Pliny the Elder nor Josephus mention Bosra/Bostra, so it certainly wasn't of any importance in the 1st c. CE.

I quite agree that without the biblical data one would not think that Aretas controlled Damascus under Caligula.

However, it seems IMO entirely plausible that Caligula would wish to support Aretas in the same way as he supported other client kings and if Aretas already held Bostra then extending his control to Damascus would be a plausible gesture of favour.
There is no reason for you to think that Aretas held Bosra ash-Sham, especially as it seems to have been in Herodian hands for at least 40 years.

Can you think of a reason why Caligula would give Damascus to Aretas IV after Aretas's ruckus against a Roman client?


spin

[Clivedurdle]

Didn't someone comment here that Damascus might be code for Megiddo?

[Toto]

There is an essay by Sid Green on christianorigins.com Qumran and Early Christianity (http://www.christianorigins.com/qumran.html)

Paul the Apostate Sectarian

According to the CD, the Essenes had a two-year induction process for novices, following an unspecified period of probation. Josephus agrees, but specifies one year for the probation, making a total of three years induction for novices. He even claims to have undergone the process personally. He notes that the Essenes expelled those who transgressed their rules, but killed any who denied the Mosaic Law — the most heinous form of apostasy. [19]

The CD also tells of the Essene ‘camps’ in the ‘land of Damascus’. Scholarly opinions vary as to what ‘Damascus’ refers to. It may possibly have meant Qumran, or it may have meant the whole of Transjordan, [20] but all are agreed that it did not mean the city in the Roman province of Syria. ...


On the same site Paul and Damascus (http://www.christianorigins.com/pauldamascus.html)

If we had only Acts to consider, we might well consider that the author of Acts was mistaken as to the Damascus he got from his source material. Perhaps the Damascus that he assumed was the large city by that name was in reality a symbolic name in his source for some other location. There are certainly grounds for such an idea in the so-called Damascus Document, a product of 2nd Temple Judaism that was partially discovered in a Cairo synagogue in 1896 and rediscovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The product of some Jewish sect, it talked about its first members having made a "new covenant" with God in the "land of Damascus". It is possible that the author of the Damascus Document actually meant the city of Damascus or it near surroundings. It is also possible that he meant some location in the area of the Decapolis city-states. Aramaic-speaker might well have referred to the Decapolis territories as the "land of Damascus" since Damascus was the political center of the confederation. However, the most likely explanation is that the "land of Damascus" in the Damascus Document had a purely symbolic significance, based on a sectarian reinterpretation of one or two passages in the Jewish scripture.

For this role, Amos 5: 21-27 fits the bill admirably:

. . .

[andrewcriddle]

The Bosra near Damascus is not the Nabataean Bosra. It was in the territory of Philip as I understand the geography, as it was part of the Trachonitis. Look at this map (http://www.studylight.org/se/maps/normal/103.jpg), which is better than that I referred to earlier to understand the extend of Trachonitis and Auranitis where Bostra is.


All one can show is some similarity of culture, which is only to be expected as the area of Philip was mostly Arab in population. This will include same or similar gods.

(I've just had the occasion to look over AJ 16.9.1, which talks both of the Trachonites and Sylleus the Nabataean functionary. The territory came into the hands of Herod when Caesar (Augustus, I guess) gave it to him to "domesticate" the area, as there were Arab brigands. Sylleus gives some of them hospitality. I don't know how it reflects on the Bostra question though.)


As I've already said, the first city of the Nabataeans isn't going to be in other people's home territory. Herod was given control of the Trachonitis. Philip held it along with Auranitis (see AJ 17.11.4 for the extent) until around 35 CE, when it was absorbed into Syria, then given to Agrippa. How could this city be Nabataean durign any of that time??


You might find Strabo 16.2.16 (&20) some help.

The location of Bosra/Bostra is fairly simple because a town exists there today, you can find it on a decent map of Syria. It's in the middle of the area of Trachonitis. And it's about time you looked at a map of the area. You'll see it on the map I link above.

One thing is interesting: neither Strabo nor Pliny the Elder nor Josephus mention Bosra/Bostra, so it certainly wasn't of any importance in the 1st c. CE.


There is no reason for you to think that Aretas held Bosra ash-Sham, especially as it seems to have been in Herodian hands for at least 40 years.

Can you think of a reason why Caligula would give Damascus to Aretas IV after Aretas's ruckus against a Roman client?


spin

I don't have access at the moment to some of the relevant literature so I can't present primary evidence that Bostra-near-Syria was an important Nabataean city.

Do you know of any expert at all in the field who agrees with you in holding that it wasn't ?

Thanks for the map. The problem is that some maps seem to extend the tetrarachy of Philip further East than others and I'm not sure what the evidence is. The map you linked to certainly extends the tetrarchy further South than others do. Most maps seem to have Bostra at the Southern boundary of Auranitis not well within it. (Most maps of the area as we have both found don't show both Bostra and Auranitis/Trachonitis but there is no dispute about the location of Bostra-near-Damascus and most maps of Philip's tetrarchy have its Southern boundary somewhat North of 32 degrees 30 minutes)

IMHO the route from Bostra to Damascus would have passed through the eastern edge of Philip's tetrarchy. However in practice communication between Bostra and Damascus would have probably depended more on relations with the independent Decapolis city of Kanatha/Canatha (which seems to have been right on that route) than relations with the ruler of Auranitis and Trachonitis.

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

I've managed to read the relevant bits of Bowersock's Roman Arabia what follows is partly from that and partly from things found on the internet including use of http://books.google.co.uk I think and hope it is accurate but I am not an expert here.

In at least one case a Nabataean inscription mentioning Bostra is unambiguous. It is an early 2nd century CE inscription referring to Bostra as the location of the Roman provincial government which certainly means Bostra near Damascus. There are no unambiguous Nabataean references to Bostra in Edom.

There are other Nabataean references to Bostra which are not as obviously clear cut. One of the most interesting being a late 1st century CE insciption on an altar at Imtan east of Bostra, which was offered "to Dushara A'ra, the god of our master, who is in Bostra, in the year 23 of Rabbel." If we take with most scholars our master to refer to the king and not the God then this implies that Bostra was at this time the Nabataean royal residence. The question is which Bostra is meant ?

Several of the inscriptions refer to Bostra as a centre of Dusares (Dushara) worship. (Dusares being one of the major Nabataean Gods) We know from coins and inscriptions that Bostra near Damascus was a centre of Dusares worship. However, although Bostra in Edom had at least limited Nabataean occupation at this time there is IIUC no direct evidence that it was a centre of Dusares worship (other sites at this time in Edom have provided evidence of being centres of Nabataean-type worship but IIUC not Bostra.)

According to the excavations of the late Crystal Bennett the main period of occupation of Bostra in Edom is pre-Hellenistic with apparently more limited occupation in the Nabataean period. (There appear no equivalent in Bostra in Edom of the Nabataean monumental architecture found at Bostra near Damascus.)

According to the inscriptions Dusares was worshipped at Bostra as Dushara A'ra which some scholars claim to be a name of Dusares found in the Northern region of Nabataean influence rather than down South. (I'm dubious myself about this particular argument)

Putting this evidence together; referring the Nabataean inscriptions about Bostra to Bostra in Edom means arguing that although Bostra at least sometimes means Bostra near Damascus and although Bostra near Damascus was a centre of Dusares worship, an inscription about Dusares worship at Bostra, from a place much closer Bostra near Damascus than Bostra in Edom refers to Bostra in Edom. This is at the very least unlikely.

Andrew Criddle

[spin]

I don't have access at the moment to some of the relevant literature so I can't present primary evidence that Bostra-near-Syria was an important Nabataean city.

Do you know of any expert at all in the field who agrees with you in holding that it wasn't ?
No, I was just trying to make sense of Bosrah as an early Nabataean city. A northern Bosra doesn't make sense for a group whose origins were Edomite (geographically speaking).

Thanks for the map. The problem is that some maps seem to extend the tetrarachy of Philip further East than others and I'm not sure what the evidence is.
The major indication is Strabo 16.2.16, which tells us that Trachonitis reaches the mountains (which reach up to Mt Hauran). Also Auranitis includes Mt Hauran, which is well to the east-north-east of Bostra.

The map you linked to certainly extends the tetrarchy further South than others do. Most maps seem to have Bostra at the Southern boundary of Auranitis not well within it. (Most maps of the area as we have both found don't show both Bostra and Auranitis/Trachonitis but there is no dispute about the location of Bostra-near-Damascus and most maps of Philip's tetrarchy have its Southern boundary somewhat North of 32 degrees 30 minutes)
I don't think there can be any doubt whatsoever as to the eastern extent of Agrippa's territory. Mt Hauran is part of Auranitis. It is the minimum eastward extent of the holding.

IMHO the route from Bostra to Damascus would have passed through the eastern edge of Philip's tetrarchy.
Through the mountains??

However in practice communication between Bostra and Damascus would have probably depended more on relations with the independent Decapolis city of Kanatha/Canatha (which seems to have been right on that route) than relations with the ruler of Auranitis and Trachonitis.
Communications between Bostra and Damascus would certainly have been west to the King's Highway and follow it up to Damascus. I really don't see what you have to gain from this sort of wayward guesswork, Andrew.

Going east around Agrippa's territory puts the traveler east of the mountains and in the desert. Through the east of Agrippa's territory, an incredible trajectory for two reasons, 1) the mountains, and 2) one sovereign didn't give right to cross to another king of equal stature, especially when that king had just made war against a relative.


spin

[the_cave]

The last time I wrote about this, did we decide that it would have been unprecendented for Aretas to occupy even a single city of the Decapolis, even aside from Damascus? (I think the claim was, the fight about Gamala was about Gamala's borders, not Aretas', and that the battle between him & Antipas must have taken place on Nabatean soil.)

Or did we distinguish between Damascus (which either belonged to Syria or didn't) and the rest of the Decapolis (which was mostly Syrian, but at least semi-autonomous)?

[andrewcriddle]

The major indication is Strabo 16.2.16, which tells us that Trachonitis reaches the mountains (which reach up to Mt Hauran). Also Auranitis includes Mt Hauran, which is well to the east-north-east of Bostra.


I don't think there can be any doubt whatsoever as to the eastern extent of Agrippa's territory. Mt Hauran is part of Auranitis. It is the minimum eastward extent of the holding.


Through the mountains??


Communications between Bostra and Damascus would certainly have been west to the King's Highway and follow it up to Damascus. I really don't see what you have to gain from this sort of wayward guesswork, Andrew.

Going east around Agrippa's territory puts the traveler east of the mountains and in the desert. Through the east of Agrippa's territory, an incredible trajectory for two reasons, 1) the mountains, and 2) one sovereign didn't give right to cross to another king of equal stature, especially when that king had just made war against a relative.


spin

I've been checking this in Bowersock's Roman Arabia

He reconstructs the mid 1st century CE Nabataean routes on the basis of sources such as the Peutinger map.

According to him the road running North-East from Philadelphia/'Amman in the Southern Transjordan bifurcates after 25 miles at Hatita (possibly Khirbet Samra)

One road goes to Bostra via Thantia (possibly Umm al-jimal). This road then turns due West to Adraha/Der'a then Capitolias then Gadara then crossing the Jordan to Tiberias then to Scythopolis then Jerusalem and the Mediterranean.

The other road passes to the East of Bostra to Canatha/Qanawat presumably via Suweida' then on to Aenos (identification uncertain) then on to Damascus.

To quote To go to Damascus via Qanawat meant precisely passing along the Western slopes of the Jebel Druz on the traveller's right and then Northwest along the edge of the desolate lava plateau of the Leja' ancient Trachonitis. From the South the route passed from Suweida' to Qanawat. It circled around the Leja' instead of crossing it. Of considerable importance is the fact that the great Roman road across the Leja' does not appear on the Peutinger Table. We may infer that it had not been built at the time of the archetype.

Bowersock goes on to argue that to reach Damscus from Bostra one would have gone nearly 10 miles East on the road to Shalkad then turned North at the intersection with the road to Suweida'. (Probably at an obscure place called Rhose).

If Bowersock is right the the route from Bostra to Damascus at the relevant time would have been at the very Eastern edges of Auranitis and Trachonitis.

Andrew Criddle