Pompey the Great, exceeding his orders on a monumental scale but WTF, the senate wasn't going to make him give anything back, overran the remnants of the Seleucid Empire and the surrounding polities in the late 60's BC. One of the cities taken was Damascus which had been held by Aretas III, king of Nabatea. Aretas III had been up to his armpits in local power politics including the dynastic collapse of the Hasmoneans. Josephus also recounts how Aretas III came to be ruler of Damascus.
As noted, Josephus also recounts how Aretas IV attacked Herod Antipas who was a client king of Rome and thus was a really stupid idea. Lucius Vitellius, as Imperial Legate of Syria, was ordered to chase down Aretas IV. These events are securely dated. Vitellius was consul in 34 and would not have even been eligible for the command in Syria until 35. He began his march in 37 and was still at Jerusalem when word arrived that Tiberius had died in mid-march of 37. Figure the Roman military post would have taken no more than a month to reach him with word we can assume that Vitellius was in Jerusalem c Mid-April of 37 at which point he discontinued his pursuit of Aretas pending new orders from the new Emperor (Caligula.) Josephus recounts all of this but never mentions a word about Damascus in any of it.
Now this line:
seems like later xtian horseshit. Somewhere along the line they also invented a supposed "Settlement of the East" by Caligula but no Roman ( or Jewish ) historian seems to know anything about it. What Caligula seems to have done - and this policy was continued by his uncle Claudius - was gradually restore bits of Herod the Great's kingdom to their boyhood friend, Herod Agrippa I. Eventually, they aggrandized Herod Agrippa I to the point where his kingdom was bigger than Herod the Great's but Damascus was never part of it. No Roman writer, not Tacitus, not Suetonius, not Lucian, not Dio, etc., etc, ever heard of Damascus being handed over to Aretas IV. Josephus does mention that in the aftermath of the XIIth Legion's retreat from Jerusalem in 66 and a subsequent rebel attack on the rear guard the citizens of Damascus rose up and massacred the Jews. Which certainly seems to suggest that their loyalties were to Rome and not Nabatea.
So I suspect that what we have here is more of the customary xtian circular reasoning. "Paul" HAD to live in the first century AD therefore he must have been referring to Aretas IV who we know died in 40 AD. Therefore the Romans "MUST" have given the city to Aretas IV because FUCKING ST PAUL could never be wrong." It's bullshit, of course, with nothing except the ravings of jesus freak maniacs to back it up.
As noted, Josephus also recounts how Aretas IV attacked Herod Antipas who was a client king of Rome and thus was a really stupid idea. Lucius Vitellius, as Imperial Legate of Syria, was ordered to chase down Aretas IV. These events are securely dated. Vitellius was consul in 34 and would not have even been eligible for the command in Syria until 35. He began his march in 37 and was still at Jerusalem when word arrived that Tiberius had died in mid-march of 37. Figure the Roman military post would have taken no more than a month to reach him with word we can assume that Vitellius was in Jerusalem c Mid-April of 37 at which point he discontinued his pursuit of Aretas pending new orders from the new Emperor (Caligula.) Josephus recounts all of this but never mentions a word about Damascus in any of it.
Now this line:
Quote:The Christian Apostle, Paul, mentions that he had to sneak out of Damascus in a basket through a window in the wall to escape the ethnarch of King Aretas. (2 Corinthians 11:32, 33, cf Acts 9:23, 24). However, there is some dispute whether troops belonging to Aretas actually controlled the city or if Paul was referring to "the official in control of a Nabataean community in Damascus, and not the city as a whole."
seems like later xtian horseshit. Somewhere along the line they also invented a supposed "Settlement of the East" by Caligula but no Roman ( or Jewish ) historian seems to know anything about it. What Caligula seems to have done - and this policy was continued by his uncle Claudius - was gradually restore bits of Herod the Great's kingdom to their boyhood friend, Herod Agrippa I. Eventually, they aggrandized Herod Agrippa I to the point where his kingdom was bigger than Herod the Great's but Damascus was never part of it. No Roman writer, not Tacitus, not Suetonius, not Lucian, not Dio, etc., etc, ever heard of Damascus being handed over to Aretas IV. Josephus does mention that in the aftermath of the XIIth Legion's retreat from Jerusalem in 66 and a subsequent rebel attack on the rear guard the citizens of Damascus rose up and massacred the Jews. Which certainly seems to suggest that their loyalties were to Rome and not Nabatea.
So I suspect that what we have here is more of the customary xtian circular reasoning. "Paul" HAD to live in the first century AD therefore he must have been referring to Aretas IV who we know died in 40 AD. Therefore the Romans "MUST" have given the city to Aretas IV because FUCKING ST PAUL could never be wrong." It's bullshit, of course, with nothing except the ravings of jesus freak maniacs to back it up.
