Appendix II

APPENDIX II
HISTORY OF THE NABATEAN KINGS
LITERATURE
RELAND, Palestina, pp. 90-95.
VINOENT, Commerce and Navigation of the Ancients in the Indian Ocean, London 1807, vol. ii. pp. 273-276 (was not obtainable by me).
QUATREMÈRE, “Mémoire sur les Nabatéens” (Nouveau Journal asiatique, t. xv. 1835, pp. 5-55, 97-137, 209-240).
ROBINSON, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 558 ff.
WILLIAMS IN SMITH’S Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, art,“Nabataei,” vol. ii. 392-394.
BITTER, Erdkunde von Asien, Thl. xii. (1846), pp. 111-140.
CLESS, art. “Nabataei,” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie der class. Alterthumswissenschaft, Bd. v. (1848) pp. 377-384.
WINER, Biblisches Realwörterbuch, art. “Nabatäer.”
DUO DE LUYNES, “Monnaies des Nabatéens” (Revue Numismatique, 1858, pp. 292-316, 362-385, pl. xiv., xv., xvi.).
The Nabateans and Professor CHWOLSON (Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, new series, vol. i. 1862, pp. 103-115).
KUHN, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des römischen Reichs, Bd. ii. (1865) pp. 165-169.

DE VOGÜÉ, “Monnaies des rois de Nabatène (Revue Numismatique, 1868, pp. 153-168, pl. v.); also reprinted in Mélanges d’archéologie orientale, Paris 1868.
DE VOGÜÉ, Syris centrales, Inscriptions sémitiques (Paris 1868), pp. 100-124; comp. Schröder, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins, xxxviii. 1884, p. 532 f.
NÖLDEKE, art. “Nabatäer,” in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, Bd. iv. (1872) p. 269 f.
DE SAULCY, “Numismatique des rois Nabatéens de Pétra” (Annuaire de la Société françaiss de Numismatique et d’Archéologie, t. iv. 1, 1873, pp. 1-35). Supplements to this: (1) Annuaire de la Sociétéfrançaise de Numismatique et d’Archéologie, t. v. (=seconde série, t i) fasc. 5, 1881, p. 462 sq. (unreadable coins, perhaps of Aretas and Sekailath). (2) Mélanges de Numismatique, t iii. 1882, pp. 193-197 (a coin of Aretas and two of Sylläus?).
GRÄTZ, “Die Anfänge der Nabatäerherrschaft” (Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1875, pp. 49-67).
SCHRADER, Keilinschriften und Geschichtsforschung, 1878, pp. 99-116.
KAUTZSCH, art. “Nabatäer,” in Riehm’s Handworterbuch des biblischen Alterthums.
MARQUARDT, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i. 2 Aufl. 1881, pp. 404 f., 431 f.
SACHAU, “Eine nabatäische Inschrift aus Dmâr” (Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch. 1884, pp. 635-542).—In addition, CLERMONTGANNEAU, Revue critique, 1885, Nr. 5, pp. 88-92, and Nr. 9, p. 176 sq. DE VÖGUE, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres de l’année, 1885 (IVme série, t. xiii.), pp. 45-52.
DOUGHTY, Documents épigraphiques recueillis dans le nord de l’Arabie, Paris 1884.
BERGER, “Nouvelles inscriptions nabatéennes de Medaïn Salih” (Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres de l’année (IVme série, t. xii.), pp. 377-393.
HALÉVY, “Inscriptions nabatéennes” (Revue des études juives, i. ix. 1884, pp. 8-16), known only from quotation in Doughty.
CLERMONT-GANNEAU, “Les noms royaux nabatéens employés comme noms divins” (Revue archéologique, IIIe série, t. v. 1885, pp. 170-178).
NEUBAUER, “On some newly-discovered Temanite and Nabataean Inscriptions” (Studia Biblica, Oxford 1885, pp. 209-232).
MOMMSEN, Römische Geschichte, v. 1885, p. 476 ff.
EUTING, Nabatäische Inschriften aus Arabien, Berlin 1886; in this work at pp. 81-89: GUTSCHMID, Verzeichniss der nabatäischen Könige—the most complete collection of materials.—Euting gives the same inscriptions for the most part as Doughty and Berger, but much more correctly.
SORLIN-DORIGNY and BABELON, “Monnaies Nebatéennes inédites” (Revue Numismatique, troisième sèrie, t. v. 1887, pp. 369-377).
Separate single Nabatean coins have been communicated by Levy, Numismat. Zeitschrift, Bd. iii. 1871, pp. 445-448, and Olshausen, Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie aus dem Jahrs, 1874, p. 185. A Nabatean inscription from Puteoli is given by Gildemeister, Zeitschrift der DMG. 1869, pp. 150-154; comp, also, Levy, Zeitschrift der DMG. pp. 652-654; Nöldeke, Ibid. 1884, pp. 144, 654. Other examples are given by Renan, Journal asiatique, VIIe série, t. ii. 1873, pp. 366-382. One inscription from Sidon is given by Levy, in Zeitschrift der DMG. 1869, pp. 435-440.
Greek Aretas coins are given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 330; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 284 sq.; Visconti, Iconographie grecque, t ii. (p. 444 sq.=atlas, pl. 48, n. 12; Lenormant, Trésor de Numismatique, p. 117, pl. lvi. n. 17-19. A Latin coin of Scaurus, with reference to the subjugation of Aretas, in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. v. 131; Babelon, Monnaies de la république romaine, i. 120 sq.
On the Aretas referred to in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 11:32), see especially Job. Gottlob Heyne, De ethnarcha Aretae Arabum regis, 2 vols. Wittemb. 1755; Anger, De temporum in actis apostolorum ratione (1833), pp. 173-182; Wieseler, Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters (1848), pp. 167-175, and the articles on Aretas in Winer’s Realwörterbuch and Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie (the latter by Wieseler).
Besides the Syrian empire in the north, and the Egyptian empire in the south, Palestine had during the Graeco-Roman period a third powerful neighbour: the Nabatean kingdom in the south and east. The history of this kingdom can now be set forth in a tolerably connected manner only when the scattered references to it in early writers, particularly in Josephus, are filled out by means of the rich materials afforded by coins and inscriptions. Information regarding the coins has been imparted by the Duc de Luynes (1858), De Vogüé (1868), and De Saulcy (1873); information regarding the inscriptions by De Vogüé (1868), Doughty (1884), Berger (who in 1884 published the materials gathered by the scientific traveller Huber, who perished as a victim in the prosecution of his calling), and Euting (1885). The inscriptions of De Vogüé belong to the district of the Hauran, and therefore to the north of the Nabatean kingdom; those published by Doughty, Berger, and Euting were found for the most part at el-Hegr. (=Medain Salih), one of the southernmost points of the kingdom of Nabatea. The latter are specially numerous and important, since almost all of them are dated according to the years of the reigns of the Nabatean kings Aretas and Malchus. The correct reading of them was for the first time made possible by the careful copies of Euting. This scholar has also correctly determined the meaning of some Nabatean number-signs, and has thereby made corrections upon several conjectured dates in the earlier readings of the coins and inscriptions. The whole material from writers, coins, and inscriptions has been collected together by Gutschmid in an excursus to Euting’s works. To his full and informing treatise, we are largely indebted for the facts in the following sketch.
About the nation of the Nabateans (Ναβαταῖοι, נבטו) we know so little that we can point to no certain indication of its nationality. The language of the coins and inscriptions, which without exception are in Aramaic, seems to confirm Quatremère’s supposition that they were Aramaeans. On the other hand, they are uniformly designated by early writers Arabians, and indeed not only by those writing at a distance, but also by such as Josephus, who must have been quite familiar with the distinction between Aramaeans and Arabians. Besides this, it should be noted also that the names on the inscriptions are distinctly Arabian. The idea therefore has rightly been insisted upon principally by Nöldeke that they were Arabians, but that they had made use for literary purposes of the Aramaic as the language of culture at that time, because the Arabic had not yet been developed into a literary language.[1548]
[1548] See Nöldeke, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch. Bd. xvii. 1863, p. 703 ff., xxv. 1871, p. 122 ff.
Regarding the history of the Nabateans previous to the Hellenic period, we really know next to nothing. Their identity with the נְבָיוֹת who are mentioned in Genesis 35:13; Genesis 28:9; Genesis 36:3, 1 Chronicles 1:29, Isaiah 60:7, as an Arabian tribe, is indeed probable but by no means certain.[1549] Nor do we obtain much further information from the cruciform inscriptions.[1550] The first actually reliable information about the Nabateans comes to us at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. We find them then, where in earlier times the Edomites had been settled, between the Dead Sea and the Aelanitic Gulf in the district of Petra, the ancient םֶלַע of the Edomites. When Antigonus, in B.C. 312, had driven Ptolemy Lagus out of Coele-Syria, he sent his general Athenäus with 4000 foot soldiers and 600 cavalry against the Nabateans. Athenäus threw down their stronghold Petra, and took from it great spoil. But in consequence of his own carelessness his army was soon thereafter almost completely annihilated by a night attack of the Nabateans; only fifteen horsemen, and even these mostly wounded, are said to have escaped. Antigonus thereupon sent his son Demetrius against the Nabateans with a new army. But even Demetrius was not able to win any decisive victory. After a fruitless siege of Petra he began again his homeward march, for he had to content himself with arranging for hostages, and taking pledges from the Nabateans that they would maintain friendship. Diodorus, who reports all this to us,[1551] gives on this occasion also a description of the Nabateans. They were even then uncivilised nomads, practising no agricultural arts, pursuing no cattle rearing and trade, and evidently still without kings. But gradually culture must have made its way more and more amongst them, until they came to have a sort of civil and political order under regal government. Their dominion was now extended toward the north and toward the south Their capital continued to be that Petra which so early as the time of Antigonus had formed their strongest place of refuge.[1552]
[1549] The identity was, it would seem, assumed even by Josephus, Antiq. i. 12. 4. He was followed by Jerome, Quaestiones in Genes. xxv. 13, Opp. ed. Vallarsi, iii. 345, and by most modern commentators. See, besides the literature referred to above, the commentaries on Genesis 25:13. The only difficulty arises from the fact that Nabajoth is written with ת, Nabatean with ט (on coins and inscriptions it is written constantly נבטן).
[1550] See Schrader, Keitinschriften und Geschichtsforschung, 1878, pp. 99-116.
[1551] Diodorus, xix. 94-100.—Compare Plutarch, Demetr. 7; Droyaen, Geschichts des Hellenismus, 2 Aufl. ii. 2, pp. 55-59.
[1552] Compare on Petra as capital of the Nabateans, especially Strabo, xvi. p. 779; Pliny, Hist. Nat. vi. 28. 144; Josephus, Antiq. 1. xiv. 4, 5. 1, 13. 9, xvii. 3. 2, xviii. 5. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 2, 8. 1, 13. 8, 29. 3; Plutarch, Pompeius, c. 41; Periplus maris erythraei, § 19.—Generally: Reland, Palaestina, p. 926 sqq.; Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 512, 517, 653; Räumer, Palästina, pp. 276-278, 451 ff.; Ritter, Erdkunde, xiv. 1103-1141; Cless in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, v. 1394 ff.; Winer, Realwörterbuch, art. “Sela;” Bertheau in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, art. “Sela;” Mühlau in Riehm’s Wörterbuch, art. “Sela;” Dyer in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, art. “Petra,” vol. ii. 583; Eckhel, Dodr. Num. iii. 503 sq.; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 587-589, Suppl. viii. 387 sq.; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 351, 353, pl. xx. 1-6; Marqnardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, 2 Aufl. i. 1881, p. 431 f.; Duc de Luynes, Voyage d’Exploration à la mer morte à Pétra et sur la rive gauche du Jourdain, 3 vols. Text and 1 of illustr. Paris, s. a. [1874] especially pl. 44-49; Bädeker-Socin, Palästina, 1875, pp. 303-309.
The first prince (τύραννος) of the Nabateans of whom we know anything is that Aretas (Aretas I.) with whom the high priest Jason in B.C. 169 in vain sought shelter (2Ma_5:8).[1553] Since Aretas is designated as τύραννος it would seem that the Nabatean princes then had not yet assumed the title of king.—After the outbreak of the Maccabean revolution the Nabatean princes assumed a friendly attitude toward the leaders of the Jewish national party (Judas, B.C. 164; Jonathan, B.C. 160). See 1Ma_5:25; 1Ma_9:35. The country under their rule now extended as far as to the district east of the Jordan.
[1553] The Second Book of Macc. 5:8 says with reference to this: Jason was imprisoned by Aretas, prince of the Arabians (ἐγκλεισθεὶς πρὸς Ἀρέταν τὸν τῶν Ἀράβων τύραννον), then fled from city to city, etc. Instead of the reading of the common text ἐγκλεισθείς, modern expositors have conjectured ἐγκληθείς (accused), and interpreted it as meaning that Jason had sought refuge with Aretas, but was not received by him, since, on account of his hostile attitude toward Antiochus Epiphanes, he had been “accused” or denounced before Aretas.
The kingdom of the Nabateans, however, did not rise into greater importance until the end of the second century before Christ, when the fall of the empire of the Ptolemies and the Seleucid dynasty made possible the founding of a powerful independent commonwealth upon their borders. In Justin’s abstract from Trogus Pompeius it is said of the period about B.C. 110-100 (Justin, xxxix. 5. 5-6) that this kingdom of Syria and Egypt had become so enfeebled, “ut adsiduis proeliis consumpti in contemptum finitimorum venerint praedaeque Arabum genti, inbelli antea, fuerint: quorum rex Erotimus fiducia septingentorum filiorum, quos ex paelicibus susceperat, divisis exercitibus nunc Aegyptum, nunc Syriam infestabat magnumque nomen Arabum viribus finitimorum exsanguibus fecerat.” This Erotimus therefore ought to be regarded as the founder of the royal Nabatean dynasty.[1554]
[1554] The two “Arabians,” referred to about B.C. 146, 145, “Zabdiel,” 1Ma_11:17 (called Zabelus in Josephue, Antiq. xiii. 4. 8, and perhaps identical with Diodes in Diodorus in: Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. t. ii. p. xvi.), and “Imalkue,” 1Ma_11:39 (called Malchus in Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5.1, and in Diodorus in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. ii. p. xvii., called Jamblichus, i.e. ימלכו, see vol i. of present work, p. 247), were probably only petty rulers, not princes of the Nabateans (see Gutschnrid in Eating, Nabatäitche Inschriften, p. 81). The very existence of the Maliku I., whom Gutechmid, on the strength of the testimony of a coin, places on the list before Erotimus, is extremely doubtful.
An Aretas II. (Ἀρέτας ὁ Ἀράβων βασιλεύς) is spoken of at the time of the siege of Gaza by Alexander Jannäus in B.C. 96. He had promised help to the Gazites, but the city fell into the hands of Alexander before Aretas could afford assistance (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 3).
A couple of years later, about B.C. 90, Alexander Jannäus attacked King Obedas I. (Ὀβέδαν τὸν Ἀράβων Βασιλέα), but suffered at his hands a crushing defeat on the east of the Jordan (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 5; Wars of the Jews, i 4. 4). De Saulcy, Gutschmid, and Babelon think that to this Obedas I. should be ascribed certain coins with the superscription עבדת מלך נבטו.[1555]
[1555] De Saulcy, Annuaire, t. iv. p. 18 sq.; Gutschmid in Eating, Nabatäische Inschriften, p. 82. An example of this coin is also given by Levy, Numismat. Zeitschrift, iii. 1871, pp. 445-448.—The specimen published by Babelon (Revue Numismatique, 1887, p. 371 sq.) has the superscription עבדת מלכא מלך נבטו, and is of the fifth year (שנת חמש).
Again, another couple of years later, Antiochus XII advanced from Coele-Syria against the king of the Arabians, whose name is not mentioned. This time also the Arabians were victorious. Antiochus himself fell in the battle at Cana (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 15. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 4. 7). By the unnamed king of the Arabians we are to understand Aretas III., of whom Josephus immediately afterwards tells that he, just in consequence of the death of Antiochus, succeeded in gaining possession of Coele-Syria and Damascus, and then gained a victory over Alexander Jannäus near Adida (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 15. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 4. 8).[1556] The power of the Nabatean kings was thus now, about B.C. 85, extended as far as Damascus.[1557] To our Aretas III. the Numismatists have rightly assigned the coins with the superscription, Βασιλέως Ἀρέτου Φιλέλληνος. These can belong to no other Aretas, for they were minted in Damascus; and not indeed to the younger Aretas IV., since he called himself “the Friend of his People.”[1558] The coins witness therefore to the prevalence of Hellenism at that period in the Nabatean kingdom.—In the time of this Aretas there occurred also the first collision with the Romans. We know from the Jewish history that Aretas, in the conflict between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, sided with the party of Hyrcanus, supported him with his troops, and laid siege to Aristobulus in Jerusalem; but then, at the command of the Roman general Scaurus, he withdrew, and on his return march was defeated by Aristobulus (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 1. 4-2. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 2-3). Thereupon Pompey had made a resolve to go himself against Aretas. But during his march to Petra he was obliged by the hostile attitude of Aristobulus to make his way back to Judea (Antiq. xiv. 3. 3-4). After the conquest of Jerusalem, Pompey made over the province of Syria to Scaurus (Antiq. xiv. 4. 5); and this general was the first to lead an expedition against Petra, but obtained from Aretas no more than the payment of a sum of money (Antiq. xiv. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 1). Only to this extent was the subjugation of Aretas carried, of which Pompey had boasted,[1559] and which was gloried over upon a coin struck in memory of the event[1560] The city of Damascus, on the very first appearance of the Romans in Syria, had been laid siege to by the legates of Pompey (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 2. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 2), and from that time onward continued under Roman suzerainty.[1561]—The period of the reign of Aretas III. extends, according to the hitherto prevailing view, from somewhere about B.C. 85 to B.C. 60. On account of the similarity between his portrait and that of Aretas Philellen, some of the Nabatean coins with the superscription חרתת מלך נבטו have been ascribed to him.[1562] On one we meet with the number 17 or 18 (so Euting-Gutschmid, not as was formerly read, 32 or 33).
[1556] Gutschmid understands by the unnamed king Babilus, by whom, according to Steph. Byz., “the Macedonian Antigonus was slain” (Steph. Byz. s.v. Μωθώ· κώμη Ἀραβίας, ἐν ᾗ ἔθανεν Ἀντίγονος ὁ Μακεδὼν ὑπὸ Ῥαβίλου τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Ἀραβίων, ὡς Οὐράνιος ἐν πέμπτῳ). Instead of Ἀντίγουος, Gutschmid reads Ἀντίοχος, and understood by it Antinchus XII. It seems to me, however, that this hypothesis is shattered by a careful comparison of Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 15. 2 with 15. 1. It would also thus be necessary to assume two kings between Aretas II. in B.C. 96 and Aretas III. in B.C. 85. In the passage from Steph. Byz. we must in any case suppose that some confusion has entered in. But all the less can we build upon it any satisfactory conclusion. Compare also Müller, Fragm. hist, graec. iv. 525.
[1557] Damascus, however, cannot have continued in unbroken possession of the Arabians down to the Roman conquest, for, according to a coin of the year 243 Seleuc. aera B.C. 70-69 (Mionnet, Suppl. viii. 193), it was then autonomous. In agreement with this also is the fact that it was occupied about that time by the Jewish queen Alexandra in order so protect it against Ptolemy Mennäus (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 16, 3, Wars of the Jews, i. 5. 3).
[1558] See the coins in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. Vet. iii. 330; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 284 sq.; Visconti, Iconographie grecque, ii. 444 sq.=atlas, pl. 48, n. 12; Lenormant, Trésor de numismatique, p. 117, pl. lvi. n. 17, 18; Duc de Luynes, Revue Numismatique, 1858, p. 293 sq., pl. xiv. n. 2, 3; De Saulcy, Annvaire, t. iv. 1873, p. 11 sq., pl. i. n. 4, 5; Imhoof-Blumer, Porträtköpfe (1885), p. 47, Illust. vi. 24.—One of these coins has the year number AP=101, on which compare Duc de Luynes, Revue Numismatique, 1858, p. 311 sq. The reference of this coin to Aretas IV., which Kohden favours (De Palaestina et Arabia provinciis Romanis, 1885, p. 6 sq.), is impossible, since the title on it, רחם עמה, cannot be synonymous with Φιλέλλην.
[1559] Diodorus, xl. 4,=Exc. Vatican, pp. 128-130. Compare also Dio Caseins, xxxvii. 15; Plutarch. Pompeius, 41; Appian, Mithridat. 106; Orosius, vi. 6.
[1560] Eckhel, Doctr. Num. Vet. v. 131; Babelon, Monnaies de la république romaine, t. i. 1885, p. 120 sq. On the coin Aretas is represented as kneeling, with the superscription: “Rex Aretas, M. Scaur, aed. cur., ex S. C.”
[1561] Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 405, and Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 476 f., assume from 2 Corinthians 11:32 that Damascus, from the beginning of the Roman period down to A.D. 106, had continued in subjection to the Arabian kings. But, besides the passage from Jerome quoted by us in Div. II. vol. i. p. 97, the following evidence seems to tell against that view: (1) According to Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 18. 74, and Ptolemy, v. 15. 22, it belonged to Decapolis, i.e. to the cities which had their freedom given them, and were placed only under the general supervision of the Roman governor of Syria. It cannot therefore, in consequence of the arrangements made by Porapey, have been given over to the king of Arabia. (2) The existence of a “cohors I. Flavia Damascenorum” (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. 2, p. 870, Dipl. n. xxvii.; Ephemeris epigr. t. v. p. 194 and p. 652 sq., a military diploma of Domitian of A.D. 90 found at Mainz) proves that at latest in the time of the Flavian dynasty, therefore in the first Christian century, regular enlistments of Roman troops were made in Damascus. This, to say the least of it, was very unlikely to occur in a city belonging to the territory of an Arabian king, although, indeed, Mommsen regards such enlistment as possible in the territories of kings who recognised the sovereignty of Rome (Hermes, xix. 48, 49). (3) After the territory of the Arabian king had been converted in A.D. 106 into a Roman province, Damascus belonged not to the Roman province of Arabia, but to the province of Syria. (So, along with others, testifies Justin in the Dial. c. Trypho, c. 78 s. fin.: Δαμασκὸς τῆς ἀρʼῥαβικῆς γῆς ἦν καὶ ἔστιν, εἰ καὶ νῦν προσνενέμηται τῇ Συροφοινίκῃ λεγομένῃ). (4) In the boundary dispute between the Sidonians and the Damascenes in the time of Tiberius (Antiq. xviii. 6. 3), mention is made only of the suzerainty of the Roman governor, not of that of the Arabian king. (5) Also the coins of Damascus, with the images of Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, are very unfavourable to the idea of a contemporary subjection to the king of Arabia. Recently Rohden has therefore rightly (De Palaestina et Arabia provinciis Romanis, 1885, pp. 4-9) decided against the views of Marquardt and Mommsen.—Wandel (Zeitechrift für kirchl. Wissensch. und kirchl. Leben, 1887, pp. 433-443) thinks he has made a completely new discovery when he declares that Damascus was “neither Arabian nor Roman, but an independent state with certain guaranteed liberties under Roman suzerainty and Roman protectors” (p. 441 f.). This, so far as it is correct, is precisely the view of those who speak of it as “Roman.”
[1562] De Vogüé, Revue Numismatique, 1868, p. 157; De Saulcy, Annuaire, iv. p. 13.
In B.C. 55 Gabinius undertook an expedition against the Nabateans. Whether at that time Aretas or his successor Malchus occupied the throne is not stated by Josephus (Antiq. xiv. 6. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 7).
Malchus I. (Μάλχος or Μάλιχος, see Nöldeke in Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften, p. 63) reigned from B.C. 50 to B.C. 28. In B.C. 47 he placed cavalry at the service of Caesar for the Alexandrian war (Bell. Alex. i.). When the Parthians conquered Palestine in B.C. 40, Herod wished to take refuge with Malchus, but was not received by him (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 14. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i. 14. 1-2). On account of the aid given by him to the Parthians, Ventidius exacted from him a tribute in B.C. 39 (Dio Cassius, xlviii. 41). Antony bestowed a portion of his territory upon Cleopatra (Dio Cassius, xlix. 32; Plutarch, Anton. 36; Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 4).[1563] In B.C. 32 Malchus sent to Antony auxiliary troops for the Actean war (Plutarch, Anton. 61). Since he no longer paid the tribute for the portion granted to Cleopatra, war was waged against him by Herod at the instigation of Antony. The war, which at the beginning was favourable to the Arabians, ended in their utter overthrow in B.C. 32-31 (Josephus, Antiq. xv. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 19). The last that we hear of Malchus is that he promised the aged Hyrcanus to support him in the revolt planned against Herod in B.C. 30 (Antiq. xv. 6. 2-3).—To our Malchus De Vogüé thinks a Nabatean inscription at Bozra should be referred, in which “the eleventh year of King Muliku” is spoken of (למלכו מלכא 11 שנת).[1564] Renan finds this same Malchus (מלכו מלך נבטו) on an inscription which has been discovered at Puteoli.[1565]
[1563] The statement of Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 3, that Malchus was put to death at the instigation of Cleopatra, is erroneous.
[1564] De Vogüé, Syrie centrale, Inscriptions sémitiques, pp. 103-105. The inscription is, according to De Vogüé (p. 114), written in an older character than the other inscriptions which have come down from the first century after Christ.
[1565] Renan, Journal asiatique, VIIe série, t. ii. 1873, pp. 366-382.
Obodas II., about B.C. 28-9, was king during the campaign of Aelius Gallus against the southern Arabians, B.C. 25-24, in which campaign a thousand Nabatean auxiliary troops took part. He made over the concerns of government wholly to his ἐπίτροπος Syllaeus, who gave to Aeliua Gallus evil counsel as to the course of march that he should take (Strabo, xvi. pp. 780-782). Obodas is still spoken of as king in the last days of Herod, when Syllaeus went to Jerusalem to treat for the hand of Salome, the sister of Herod (Antiq. xvi. 7. 6; Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 6), and when Herod undertook an expedition against the Arabians (Antiq. xvi. 9. 1 and 4). Just about that time, B.C. 9 (?), Obodas died it is supposed by poison administered to him by Syllaeus (Antiq. xvi 9. 4). Some coins have been communicated by De Saulcy.[1566]
[1566] De Saulcy, Annuaire, t. iv. p. 19. Also Euting-Gutschmid, p. 84.—Two coins of Syllaeus (?) are given by De Saulcy, Mélanges de Numismatique, t. iii. 1882, p. 196.
Aretas IV., whose original name was Aeneas, from B.C. 9 till A.D. 40, succeeded Obodas immediately in the possession of the throne (Antiq. xvi. 9. 4).[1567] Because of his assuming the government of his own accord, Augustus was at first indignant, but afterwards recognised him as king (Antiq. xvi. 10. 9). Aretas repeatedly preferred accusations against Syllaeus before Augustus (Antiq. xvii. 3. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 29. 3), and in consequence of these complaints Syllaeus was put to death in Rome (Strabo, xvi. p. 782; Nicholas of Damascus in Müller, Fragm. hist, graec. iii. 351). When, after the death of Herod in B.C. 4, the governor Varus was obliged to fit out a warlike expedition against the Jews, Aretas contributed auxiliary troops to his army (Antiq. xvii. 10. 9: Wars of the Jews, ii. 5. 1).—From the long reign of Aretas only a few incidents belonging to its latest period have come down to us. The tetrarch Herod Antipas had a daughter of Aretas for his wife, and her he subsequently divorced in order to marry Herodias. The enmity occasioned thereby between the two princes was further inflamed by disputes regarding boundaries. An open conflict followed, in which the army of Herod was defeated by the troops of Aretas. Owing to his having proceeded at his own instance, Aretas was to have been chastised by the governor Vitellius at the instigation of the Emperor Tiberius. But when Vitellius, on his march against Petra, received in Jerusalem the tidings of the death of Tiberius he turned back, leaving his task unperformed (Antiq. xviii. 5.1 and 3). These events therefore belong to the latest years of the reign of Tiberius, A.D. 36-37. At a period not much later occurred Paul’s flight from Damascus, at which time Damascus was under a governor (ἐθνάρχης) of King Aretas (2 Corinthians 11:32). We learn from this statement that now again Damascus belonged to the domain of the Arabian king. This is also confirmed by the fact that from the time of Caligula and Claudius no coins of Damascus are known having the image of the Roman emperor. Compare Div. II. vol. i. pp. 97, 98. Probably Caligula, who was induced to the performance of such acts of grace, had restored the city to Aretas.[1568]—Of no other Nabatean king have we so rich materials in coins and inscriptions as of Aretas IV. Among the inscriptions of el-Hegr=Medain-Salih, which Doughty, Huber, and, most correctly of all, Euting have communicated, there are found no fewer than twenty which are dated from the reign of this Aretas, most of which are in a good state of preservation.[1569] The same Aretas is probably also referred to in an inscription at Sidon,[1570] and on the two inscriptions from Puteoli.[1571] His name also occurs not infrequently on coins.[1572] On the inscriptions at el-Hegr he is constantly called חרתת מלך נבטו רחם עמה, “Charitheth, king of the Nabateans, who loves his people” (Rachem-ammeh). It is the same also, as a rule, upon the coins. The title Rachem-ammeh is an expression of a national patriotic sentiment, and embraces an indirect refusal or repudiation of such titles as Φιλορώμαιος or Φιλόκαισαρ (Gutschmid, p. 85).[1573] That this very Aretas, Rachem-ammeh, is identical with Aretas IV. may be regarded as certain. For the year of this reign as given on the inscriptions of el-Hegr reach down to the year 48, and indeed the twenty-eighth year is written on both inscriptions (Euting, No. 16 and 17) in words, שנת ארבעין ותמונא לחרתת מלך נבטו רחם עמה, so that a doubt in regard to the number is impossible. The coins (also according to Euting-Gutschmid, p. 85) come down to the year 48; but only Aretas IV. can have reigned for so long a time. And there is thus also a proof supplied that the Aretas mentioned in the last years of Herod the Great is identical with the opponent of Herod Antipas.
[1567] The year of the accession to the throne cannot be with certainty determined. Compare the chronology of the last years of Herod in vol. i. p. 414.
[1568] So also Gutschmid in Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften, p. 85. The older literature on this question is given by Anger, Wieseler, Winer in the above-named works. Very improbable is the view presented in various forms that Aretas had gained possession of Damascus by force. Such an attack upon Roman territory could not have been left unheeded. The coins of Damascus with the image of Tiberius come down to the year 345 Seleuc. aera=A.D. 33-34 (Mionnet, v. 286; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, p. 30); those of Nero begin with the year 374, Seleuc. aera=A.D. 62-63 (Mionnet, v. 286; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, p. 36). In the interval Damascus may have been in the possession of the Arabian king.
[1569] Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften, pp. 24-61 (Nr. 1-20).
[1570] De Vogüé, Syrie, centrale, Inscriptions sémitiques, p. 113=Levy, Zeitschrift der DMG. 1869, p. 435 ff. With reference to the date, compare also Euting-Gutschmid, p. 85. De Saulcy is inclined to refer it to Aretas III, and by the Zoilus therein spoken about, to understand the person of that name known to us from Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 12. 2 and 4. See Comptes rendus de la société française de numismatique et d’archéologie, 1873, which is known to be only by Bursian’s Jahresbericht, ii. 1246 f.
[1571] Gildemeister, Zeitschrift der DMG. 1869, p. 150 ff.; Levy in same Journal, p. 652 ff.; Nöldeke in same Journal, 1884, pp. 144, 654; Renan, Journal asiatiques, VIIe série, t. ii. 1873, p. 366 sqq.—With regard to the dating of both, compare Euting-Gutschmid, p. 85.
[1572] Duc de Luynes, Revue Numismatique, 1858, pp. 294-296; De Vogüé, Revue Numismatique, 1868, p. 162 sqq.; De Saulcy, Annuaire, t. iv. 1873, pp. 13-17; Babelon, Revue Numismatique, 1887, pp. 374-377.
[1573] He casually remarks that one should expect, according to the Semitic חרתת, naturally Ἀρέθας, as indeed the well-known bishop of Caesarea names himself. The form Ἀρέτας undoubtedly has arisen under the influence of the Greek word ἀρετή.
Abias, ὁ Ἀράβων βασιλεύς, in the time of Claudius undertook a warlike expedition against Izates of Adiabene, in which he was aided by the very subjects of Izates, who were disgusted at his conversion to Judaism. Abias was conquered by Izates, and in order to escape falling into his enemy’s hands took his own life (Antiq. xx. 4. 1).—In Gutschmid’s list this Abias is not inserted (or is overlooked?). But certainly the fact is remarkable that a Nabatean king takes the field against the Adiabene lying on the other side of the Euphrates.—In another place, however, Josephus says expressly that Ναβατηνή stretched from the Red Sea to the Euphrates.[1574]
[1574] Josephus, Antiq. i. 12. 4: οὗτοι (scil. the descendants of Ishmacl) πᾶσαν τὴν ἀπʼ Εὐφράτου καθήκουσαν πρὸς τὴν Ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν κατοικοῦσι, Ναβατηνὴν τὴν χώραν ὀνομάσαντες.
Malchus II., about A.D. 48-71, in A.D. 67 contributed auxiliary troops to the army of Vespasian for the Jewish war (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 4. 2), and is mentioned in the Periplus maris Erythraei, composed about A.D. 70, as king of the Nabateans (Periplus maris Erythrasi, § 19, ed. Fabricius: Λευκὴ κώμη, διὰ ἧς ὁδός ἐστιν εἰς Πέτραν πρὸς Μαλίχαν, βασιλέα Ναβαταίων). An inscription at Salkhat in the Hauran is dated from “the seventeenth year of Maliku, king of the Nabateans, son of Charithath, king of the Nabateans, who loves his people” (Rachem-ammeh).[1575] At el-Hegr were found six inscriptions, which are dated according to the years of the reign of Maliku,[1576] of which the latest (Euting, No. 26) is of “the twenty-first year of King Maliku, king of the Nabateans,” כשנת עשרין וחדה למלכו מלכא מלד נבטו. There are coins of the year 9, and of the year 23 (so Euting-Gutschmid, p. 86, not as De Vogüé, who reads 25 and 33).[1577] Since the king Rabel, according to the inscription of D’mer, succeeded to the throne in A.D. 71, Malchus reigned from about A.D. 48 to 71. During his time also Damascus had been, probably by Nero, again separated from the Nabatean kingdom (see above, p. 357).
[1575] De Vogüé, Syrie centrale, Inscriptions sémitiques, p. 107; Schröder, Zeitschrift der DMG. 1884, p. 532 f.
[1576] Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften, pp. 61-68 (Nr. 21-26).
[1577] Duc de Luyncs, Revue Numismatique, 1858, p. 296 eq.; De Vogüé, Revue Numismatique, 1868, p. 166 sq.; De Saulcy, Annuaire, t. iv. 1873, p. 17 sq.—A coin of Malchus and Sekilath without date is given by Sorlin-Dorigny, Revue Numismatique, 1887, p. 369 sq.
Rabel, A.D. 71-106, is known only from inscriptions and coins. His name is, according to Euting, to be pronounced not as formerly Dabei, but Rabel (רבאל). An older Ῥάβιλος βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἀραβίων is mentioned in Steph. Byz. s.v. Μωθώ (see above, p. 352). The year of his accession to the throne can be precisely determined according to the inscription at D’mer, which is dated from the month Ijjar “in the year 405 according to the reckoning of the Romans, that is, in the twenty-fourth year of the king Rabel.”[1578] By the year 405, “according to the reckoning of the Romans,” is to be understood the year of the Seleucid era. Accordingly the date corresponds to May A.D. 94. See Gutschmid, p. 86. The first year of Rabel is A.D. 71. On two inscriptions at el-Hegr the second and fourth year of Rabel are mentioned;[1579] on an inscription at Salkhat in the Hauran the twenty-fifth, שנת עשרין וחמש לרבאל;[1580] the coins give no certain date.[1581] Since on some coins Rabel is mentioned along with his mother, he must have been a minor at the time of his accession. Mention of him on the inscription at D’mer, east of Damascus, on the way to Palmyra, proves that the Nabatean dominion extended to that region.
[1578] So reads Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften, p. 86. The first to publish it was Sachau in Zeitschrift der DMG. 1884, p. 536 ff.; and he read 410.
[1579] Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften, pp. 68-70 (Nr. 27, 28).
[1580] De Vogüé Syrie centrale, Inscriptions sémitiques, p. 112.
[1581] Duc de Luynes, Revue Numismatique, 1884, p. 297 sq.; De Vogüé Revue Numismatique, 1868, p. 167 sq.; De Saulcy, Annuaire, t. iv. 1873, pp. 19-21. In addition: Euting-Gutschmid, p. 86.
Rabel was probably the last king of the Nabateans, for in A.D. 106 “Arabia belonging to Petra” was converted by Cornelius Palma, the governor of Syria, into a Roman province.[1582] The boundary of the province seems to have approached that of what had been the Nabatean kingdom.[1583] In any case, Petra in the south and Bostra in the north (in the district of Hauran), both of which reckoned according to the provincial era of A.D. 106, had belonged to that kingdom as its most important cities.[1584] Subsequently in the fourth Christian century Arabia was divided into two provinces: Arabia with Bostra as its capital, and Palaestina tertia with Petra as its capital.[1585]
[1582] Dio Cassius, lxviii. 14: κατὰ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον χρόνον καὶ Πάλμας τῆς Συρίας ἄρχων τὴν Ἀραβίαν τὴν πρὸς τῇ Πέτρᾳ ἐχειρώσατο καὶ Ῥωμαίων ὑπήκοον ἐποιήσατο. Compare, Ammianus, xiv. 8. 13. The fact is also celebrated by coins of Trajan, with the superscription Arab. adquisit (Cohen, Médailles impériales, 2 ed. vol. ii. 1882, Trajan, n. 26-38).—On Cornelius Palma, see also Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2296, 2297, 2305; Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 2186; Liebenam, Forschungen sur Verwaltungsgeschichte des röm. Kaiserreichs, Bd. i. 1888, p. 43 f.—On the incorporation of Arabia: Dierauer in Büdinger’s Untersuchungen zur röm. Kaisergeschichte, i. 111; De la Berge, Essai sur la règne de Trajan, Paris 1877, pp. 71-73; Schiller, Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, i. 2, p. 554.
[1583] Rohden (De Palaestina et Arabia provinciis Romanis, pp. 15, 17) makes an attempt to determine the boundaries more exactly.
[1584] Chronicon Paschale (ed. Dindorf, i. 472): Πετραῖοι καὶ Βοστρηνοὶ ἐντεῦθεν τοὺς ἑαυτῶν χρόνους ἀριθμοῦσι. The Chronicon Paschale makes this remark under the year 105 (“Candido et Quadrate Coss.”). But the exact date of the epoch was 22nd March 106. See Waddington, “Les ères employées en Syrie” (Revue archéologique, nouv. série, t. xi. 1865, pp. 263-272); Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 431; Gutschmid in Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften, p. 87. The inscriptions are given in Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2088, 2462, 2463. See also Waddington’s explanations of n. 2463.
[1585] On the history of the province, see Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i. 2 Aufl. 1831, pp. 431-434, and the literature quoted there; Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des röm. Reichs, ii. 373-388; Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 471-486; Rohden, De Palaestina et Arabia provinciis Romanis quaestiones selectae, Diss. Berol. 1885. Rohden gives at pp. 49-57 a list of the governors of the province, and seeks to show at pp. 22-30 that the partition of the province took place between A.D. 357 and A.D. 361. See also, Liebenam, Forschungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte des röm. Kaiserreichs, Bd. i. 1888, pp. 42, 49, for a list of the governors.