Well, Duh! But also, Aha!

Biblical Scholars know of Emil Schurer's mammoth 1890 work, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. I was reading Appendix #1 on Abilene last week, and today I found a funny line in Appendix #2 on Nabatea. At the end of a very long footnote, explaining several reasons why Damascus was not Arabian, Schurer said something I had to share:

Wandel [German scholar, 1887] 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". This, so far as it is correct, is precisely the view of those who speak of it as "Roman".

Heh, heh. ;) This is the kind of quote where I feel two different ways at the same time, "Well yeah, duh." and "Aha, so that's it." It's like saying "Blueberries are red when they're green." It's like saying you've arrived at the place you've started but you feel like you know it much better now. Anyway, the Schurer quote (and this feeling) went right along with the related epiphany it gave me this morning - that the role of a Client-King, such as Herod Antipas, in a lot of ways, was more like a Roman Governor than an independent monarch.

Well, yeah, duh! But at the same time, in a new & deeper way... Aha!