"Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@historian.net>

Paul uses the title ethnarchos under Aretas which indicates a governor for the Nabataean people in Damascus and not the governor OF Damascus which title, according to Josephus (ant xviii.112) and epigraphy would be STRATHGOS. Josephus uses ETHNARXOS at ant xiv.117 and xix.283 for the governor of the Jewish people in Alexandria. Nabataea had trade colonies in Gerasa, the cities of the Decapolis and in Damascus which had a Nabataean Quarter called NABATAIWN still preserved in Greek genitive in the Arabic en-Naibatun. We are not talking about the existence of Damascus as a Nabataean Colony but of a Nabataean colony in Damascus. Vitellius would have appointed this governor, probably consulting with Aretas prior to the war with Antipas. Tiberius dies before Vitellius can act decisively against Aretas, Pilatus executes the Samaritan "new Moses" insurgents and Caligula is undoing every edict of Tiberius and re-establishing client-kings. I doubt if Caligula ceded Damascus to Aretas in 37 CE instead of Agrippa but the whole thing is in turmoil. It is likely the Nabataean governor of the Nabataean quarter remained in place under Vitellius and so was the "governor under King Aretas."

"Bill Heroman" <herobill@gmail.com>

Jack,

Thanks very much for that survey and those references. I learned something new, which is always fantastic! I hope you appreciate and likewise enjoy the following vigorous reply.

If the Ethnarch of Aretas held the position such as you describe, I grant that he may well have remained in Damascus in 37, after the Nabateans withdrew from the Golan & Trachonitis. What is least clear is why the Ethnarch wanted Paul and whether the Ethnarch was acting alone or in concert with any other authorities, including Aretas. What is most certain is that Aretas himself had more influence in the region before Nabatea's withdrawal.

It would still seem that if the planned extradition was to be at all official, Paul's escape must have occured before 37. Otherwise, if the escape was in 37 or after, the Ethnarch's stake-out positions seem a little too conspicuous to get by the Damascene Council without some kind of official warrant. I suppose the Ethnarch could have lied and claimed to be after a local Nabatean, but would being caught in the lie risk his local position? There's probably more to consider here, but at the moment I still find pre-37 more likely for 2nd Cor.11:32.

I also have some questions about other points you raised. You said:

QUOTE
Vitellius would have appointed this governor, probably consulting with Aretas prior to the war with Antipas. Tiberius dies before Vitellius can act decisively against Aretas, Pilatus executes the Samaritan "new Moses" insurgents and Caligula is undoing every edict of Tiberius and re-establishing client-kings.
ENDQUOTE

On appointments:
(1) Why would the Governor of Syria appoint a local Ethnarch in Damascus? (2) Assuming that view, what did this 'consultation' look like over 300+ miles? And if it was a mere formality of approval by dispatch, who really did the 'appointing'? (3) Isn't it more likely the local N community in D appointed their own leader, perhaps under Petra's influence, but with no more Syrian authorization than the local D Council? (4) If Vitellius appointed the Ethnarch before Aretas' incursion and withdrawal, did the next Governor in 37 have any difficulty reappointing a local official or 'consulting' with a King so recently out of favor?

On Caligula:
(5) Why do you say Caligula was "undoing every edict" of Tiberius? What edicts have I missed noting in the record? (6) Why do you say Caligula is re-establishing client-kings? Other than Agrippa, who have I missed being appointed by Caligula? (7) And finally, Jack, what do you see as the role of Macro during the turnover from Tiberius to Caligula?

Thanks again, Jack, for bringing this topic back up. I'm looking forward to your worthy reply in due time.

"Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@historian.net>

> (1) Why would the Governor of Syria appoint a local Ethnarch in Damascus?

The Legatus Syriae was, next to the Emperor, the highest ranking Roman official in the Empire, in this case Lucius Vitellius. The Cambridge Encyclopedia (vol 18) claims that Caligula transferred control of Damascus to Nabataea in 37 CE and maybe so.
Although it could be an historicization (forgive the neologism) of the Corinthians/Acts account, I think it may have happened that way, as I will explain.. There were 15 Legati assigned to 15 of the 37 Roman provinces. The Syrian administration was that which protected the Eastern border, particularly from the Parthians. The seat of the Legatus was Antioch which included 4 legions, III Gallica, VI Ferrata, X Fretensis and XII Fulminata plus many auxilia. The Legatus Syriae was the head of the provincial government of the Province of Syria which included Syria, including Damascus, Lebanon, Galilee and Judea and commander in chief of all military forces in the East. Damascus was a privileged Roman City that was special to Augustus and the site of the massive Temple of Zeus. It sat on the trade route and was highly prosperous. Most of the countries that participated in that trade would have had a colony in Damascus governed by an ethnarch and overseen by the strategos of Damascus. The political turmoil happening at this time makes it difficult to assess whether Aretas IV was involved but it was important, despite the Antipas ass kicking, to maintain an orderly relationship with Aretas since Nabataea controlled the trade routes to the east. The top of the pecking order, however, was Vitellius and his four legions.

> (2) Assuming that view, what did this 'consultation' look like over 300+ miles? And if it was a mere formality of approval by dispatch, who really did the 'appointing'?

Given the way Rome operated, I would suspect that Vitellius would have left it up to Aretas and through the strategos.. The silk road ran smack dab down Via Recta and on westward and a lot of cash was at stake in having at least a half decent relationship with the Nabataeans.

> (3) Isn't it more likely the local N community in D appointed their own leader, perhaps under Petra's influence, but with no more Syrian authorization than the local D Council?

Other ethnarchs mentioned by Josephus and Strabo required permission from Augustus according to Philo. I don't think it would have been prudent for either Rome or Aretas to allow the N community to "elect" their own leader.

> (4) If Vitellius appointed the Ethnarch before Aretas' incursion and withdrawal, did the next Governor in 37 have any difficulty reappointing a local official or 'consulting' with a King so recently out of favor?

I have to speculate considering the geopolitical situation on the ground and the situation in Rome. Vitellius was Legatus until 39. He was one of the most intelligent and astute Roman consuls in Roman history and a brilliant strategist and politician. Lets take a minute to look at what was happening at this time when Paul was dropping down the city wall in a basket. Vitellius' villa was also on Capris so he obviously was highly regarded by the normally paranoid and perverted Tiberius. Tiberius made him a consul in 34 CE and according to Tacitus, "...tum anno XXXV a Tiberio Imperatore lagatus Augusti pro Praetore Syriae est et cunctis, quae apud orientem parabantur Lucium Vitellium praefecit.." he was appointed Legatus Syriae in 35 CE. It is important to understand that this was the most important office in the Roman Empire next to the Emperor. He arrived in Antioch, the seat of government, in late 35 and immediately replaced Artabanus II of Parthia with the Roman backed Tiridates but then at the beginning of 36 CE goes to Cilicia to put down a tribal rebellion. Tiridates conducts a campaign in Persia during which Artabanus retakes the throne of Parthia and Tiridates returns to Vitellius with his tail between his legs. At the same time, in Judea, the Samaritans decided a "new Moses" had shown up and they mount an armed rebellion. Pontius Pilatus puts down the rebellion brutally and executes the Samaritan leaders. The Samaritans complain to Vitellius  who deposes Pilatus and sends him back to Rome. This is curious since, as praefectus Judaeorum, a military office, Pilatus did exactly as he was supposed to do. What was the real reason Pilatus was recalled to Rome? Was it because the Samaritans were offended or was it because Tiberius had been rounding up and executing Sejanus' appointees and was just getting around to Pilatus, perhaps reminded by Macro who replaced Sejanus.
With Pilatus gone it was routine to depose the past prefect's High Priest appointee, in this case Caiaphas, and appoint a new one, Jonathan.The last quarter of 36 CE and the first quarter of 37 CE was chaotic indeed and it does not seem that Vitellius had a chance to relax when Aretas attacked Herod Antipas in Galilee for Antipas' affront against his daughter, Phasaelis, whom he divorced and sent away so he could marry Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Herod Philip and also the daughter of his half brother, Aristobulus whom his father murdered. You gotta love this family, huh? No wonder John the Baptist went ballistic. Aretas won and captured Antipas' land holdings on the West side of the Jordan all the way down to Qumran.

I think it is possible that this was when the Dead Sea Scrolls were cached, but I digress.

Tiberius ordered Vitellius to attack Petra and send him Aretas' head. Now my assessment of Lucius Vitellius is that he would favor Aretas over the pansy, Antipas but orders are orders and Aretas mobilized two legions, probably Fretensis and Ferrata (just my speculation) and went into Galilee and down to Jerusalem where he stopped to oversee "an ancient festival of the Jews just then approaching." If it was Passover it was March 21, 37 CE. I think the upcoming Passover was the reason, as Josephus reports (Ant 18.5.3), the "principal men" did not want the legions crossing the land and carrying the defiling insignia.... or was it Sukkoth (September 12, 37 CE).
It was this time Josephus says that Vitellius got a message that Tiberius had died. Tiberius died on March 16 and Passover began March 21. Here is my problem, a message could not have gotten to Judea from Rome in four or five days. A ship from Rome took at least ten days in good weather. On the other hand, I cannot see Vitellius learning of Tiberius' death 6 months later. I think the only solution is that Vitellius arrived in Jerusalem with his legions around the second week of March and learned of Tiberius death after Passover around April 1.

OK, so when he learned Tiberius was dead, he could not move on Aretas unless ordered by Caligula and I don't think Vitellius pressed the issue with Caligula.

The Nabataean Ethnarch for the Nabataean Quarter in Damascus probably held that post for quite some time and would have settled most issues himself and settling taxation issues with the Strategos....until sovereignty was passed to Aretas.

Now lets look at what Paul says: "In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me: "

But the Strategos would have been responsible for the garrisons, not the "mayor" of the Nabataean Quarter.

Then 2 Corinthians 11:28 has Paul talking about "the care of ALL the churches." In 37 CE??

Paul is writing to the Corinthians, probably from Antioch, sometime around 55 CE and he wrote at least 4 letters. 2 Corinthians is not flowing and uniform and is an amalgam of several letters. Regardless, Paul is discussing something that happened around 18 years BEFORE he wrote these passages. Clearly there was not "all of the churches" in 37 CE.
Also, if Caligula transferred Damascus to Nabataean control, as is mentioned, it would explain Vitellius not following through against Aretas but the window here for the date of Paul's escape in a basket is narrow since Aretas died in 39 CE. The first time Paul is in Damascus following his conversion and temporary blindness and as a result of his preaching, according to Acts 9, it was the Jews that wanted to kill him and waiting at the city gate, he is lowered over the wall in a basket. Now the Jews had their own quarter and ethnarchos in Damascus. In 2 Corinthians it is the Nabataean ethnarch that pursues him and he is lowered in a basket. Why would the Nabataean ethnarch have an interest in Paul? The Nabataean Quarter was in the east side of the city and the Jewish Quarter was the southeast.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that Caligula in April or May of 37 CE transferred sovereignty of Damascus to Aretas as a client-king and did not care about Antipas who was, after all, banished to Gaul at the same time. The two actions may have been related. Aretas may have been one of those client kings the young Caligula met when traveling with Antonia. If that is the case, the Nabataean ethnarch would have become the strategos of the entire city which is the only reason he would have been responsible for the garrisons and have ruled in favor of the Jewish community concerning Paul's "rabble-rousing."

> (5) Why do you say Caligula was "undoing every edict" of Tiberius? What edicts have I missed noting in the record? (6) Why do you say Caligula is re-establishing client-kings? Other than Agrippa, who have I missed being appointed by Caligula?

Whether primary or secondary literature, it is one of those things I don't remember off the top of my head and would require research. Tiberius continued Augustus' penchant for taking direct control of provinces and Caligula resumed client-kingships. As a child he met a number of client kings in the east with his grandmother Antonia who taught him the benefits of the system. On Caligula's death Claudius rescinded the practice.

Caligula, the Corruption of Power, 1989, A. A. Barrett, Batsford, London; Tiberius the Politician, Barbara LeVick, 1999, Routledge

> (7) And finally, Jack, what do you see as the role of Macro during the turnover from Tiberius to Caligula?

Considerable. Macro was the "whistle-blower" that discredited Sejanus to Tiberius and replaced him as Tiberius' praefectus praetorianus. In that position Macro continuously praised Caligula to Tiberius to thwart any paranoid feelings that may have crept in. Macro smothered the sick pedophile and supported him as successor to the principate at the Senate. A year later, Caligula being even more paranoid about the threat posed by a powerful Praetorian Prefect, repaid Macro by forcing him and his wife to commit suicide.

^[56]De stadhouder van den koning Aretas in Damaskus, bezette de stad der Damaskenen, willende mij vangen;
^56. Gr. de overste des volks; namelijk tegen mij opgewekt zijnde van de Joden. Zie Hand.9:24,25.