Talk:Aretas IV Philopatris

Paul's citizenship

The article reads,

Because the Jews of Damascus are mentioned as lying in wait for Paul, it is very probable that Aretas made the attempt to capture Paul at the request of the Jews. From this it follows that the Jews must have been influential in the Nabataean kingdom; otherwise the Nabataeans would have been careful to avoid any interference with Paul, who was a Roman citizen.

The inference is not so simple, because according to Robert H. Gundry's A Survey of the New Testament (2nd edition, 1970), one of the possible reasons why Paul did not appeal more to his Roman citizenship was that proving such a citizenship was complicated. Claiming to be a citizen without proof would award the death penalty; and the proof process would imply the presence of witnesses and documents which Paul would not carry with him. So the only time Paul claims his citizenship was at a time when he was arrested in Caesarea (seat of Roman power in Palestine), and he knew the Jewish leaders were about to have him transported back to Jerusalem only to ambush and kill Paul on the way (see book of Acts.) So, Paul only appeals to his citizenship when he knows he will die the next day unless he reveals himself as a Roman citizen. Even so, his revelation of citizenship and subsequent appeal to Caesar earned him almost two years of imprisonment in Caesarea, a perilous winter sea voyage complete with shipwreck, and at least three years' house arrest in Rome. – Tintazul ^msg 15:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed the above paragraph that speculates about Jewish motivations

This speculation is based on an uncritical reading of the Biblical text in 1906 that pre-dated much of the modern Biblical higher criticism of the New Testament. There are serious questions about the authorship of Acts and exact contents of the various Pauline Epistles, particularly in regard to the theological disputes between Early Christians and normative Judaism.

Anyway, what has this got at all to do with an article about the historical Nabatean King Aretas IV? The Nabateans produced remarkable monuments, monopolized the spice trade between Southern Arabia and the Mediterranean, and developed a sophisticated system of water-harvesting to support desert agriculture. Is Aretas IV's sole claim to fame his possible relationship to the Apostle Paul and the Jews of Damascus? Let's leave this highly speculative discussion to the articles about Paul and Early Christianity and New Testament textual source criticism.

• Archæogenetics  ^TALK  01:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The article states at the outset:

  Aretas IV Philopatris was the King of the Nabataeans from roughly 9 BC to AD 40.

and later notes that:

   But because of the emperor's death in AD 37 this action was never carried out.

Is this discrepancy due to the actual dates of his death or his reign being unknown, or is he credited with a reign extending to the fall of the Nabatean state?

The emperor was Tiberius. On the news of his death Vitellius returned to Syria and Aretas lived another three years. -- spin|^control 03:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Petra?

Wasn't this the king that built the Khazneh and whose family was buried in the tombs discovered underneath it? -- œ^™ 11:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the builder of the Khazneh is still quite debated, as it can only be done stylistically. It is probably quite likely to have been Aretas IV though. If you mean his close family (wife, children etc) being buried in the tombs discovered below modern ground level, that's a bit of a misnomer as archaeologically, the tombs below can't be contemporary. If you mean ancestors, then that is possible, but again, specific evidence is lacking. The Khazneh is one of those places that archaeologists love to argue over! Vastiel (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Aretas in Damascus

The coin cited in T. E. Mionnet, Description des medailles antiques greques et romaines, V [1811], 284f. see here is certainly not of Aretas IV. It is marked King Aretas Philhellene, ie Aretas III, who had control of Damascus over a century earlier before the Romans arrived, so I have removed it from the article.

I also removed the speculation concerning Caligula giving Damascus to Aretas IV. Though the speculation can be found in literature dealing with 2 Cor 11:32, such a gift by Caligula has no evidence to support it. -- spin|^control 19:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, in fact Martin Hengel in his 1997 Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years pg 130 points out why such a theory is unlikely:

1) "Had the city been handed over to Aretus IV, then the etharch would have been the royal governor in the CIty. However, in that case one would have expected the titles strategos or epitropus and not ethnarches."

2) "it is also very improbable that Caligula would have handed over a famous Hellenistic polis rich in tradition to a client king who was a 'barbarian' and therefore willful, and against who his predecessor Tiberius was wanted to wage war."

3) It would have been "geographically improbable" because Caligula has already given Philip's lands to Vitellius meaning "Damascus would have largely been cut off from Nabataean territory by the kingdom of Agrippa I"

Also if you look at a map of Herod the Great's kingdom Damascus was NEVER a part of it. In fact, Damascus was some 50 miles away in a northeast direction from Caesarea Philippi the northern most point of Herod the Great's empire. This means Damascus had been a part of Syria all the way back to the time of Herod the Great.

Martin Hengel's third point also argue against Aretus IV ever controlling Damascus in the 33-39 period because not only it would have cut off by the kingdom of Agrippa I and Phillip (later part of Syria) but deep within Vitellius territory meaning he would have had to wage war on Vitellius to even get to the city.--216.223.234.97 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Eras: Proposal to use BC/AD

Please stop these foolish, intellectually dishonest "CE/BCE" euphemisms and return to AD/BC nomenclature: It's obvious that "CE/BCE" uses Dionysius's dating from the time of Christ. If you want to reject this dating system, then actually do so by picking a different dating point. To use CE/BCE, i.e. to date from the time of Christ yet refuse to mention Him, is dishonest, and dishonesty has no place in any serious encyclopedia. Not only is this "Common Era"/"Before Common Era" nomenclature dishonest, it is obviously false (at least without eschatological reference to the Incarnation): The world did not share a 'common era' until the advent of the world-wide web, or perhaps World War I. Thus, the CE/BCE nomenclature degrades the quality of Wikipedia through its foolishness, dishonesty, falseness, and absurdity. Please stop using it. -- Newagelink (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Did Aretas really control Damascus at the time "Paul" claimed?

Should this article be updated to reflect information recorded over at Damascus#Greco-Roman_period? "It is speculated that control of Damascus was gained by Aretas IV Philopatris of Nabatea between the death of Herod Philip in 33/34 AD and the death of Aretas in 40 AD but there is substantial evidence against Aretas controlling the city before 37 AD and many reasons why it could not have been a gift from Caligula between 37 and 40 AD. In fact, all these theories stem not from any actual evidence outside the New Testament but rather "a certain understanding of 2 Corinthians 11:32" and in reality "neither from archaeological evidence, secular-historical sources, nor New Testament texts can Nabatean sovereignty over Damascus in the first century AD be proven."" --StephanNaro (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)