The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

Post by GakuseiDon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:50 pmIf Annas and Caiaphas are named in Luke 3.1-2 for their involvement in the passion, it seems strange that they are not named at all in the actual Lucan passion narrative: a missed opportunity (it is actually the Gospel of John that makes good on this opportunity; maybe there is something lurking behind that little datum).
I'm thinking of Luke and Paul reflecting Psalm 2, which isn't about the passion but a warning to the rulers and judges coming together against the Messiah and rejecting him:

Psalm 2:

2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us
...
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
...
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.

Luke 23 & 24:

23:13 And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers [archon] and the people,
14 Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:
15 No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.
...
34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers [archon] also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,
37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.
38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
...
24:19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

Going back to Luke 3, we have a list of rulers and high priests presumably involved in the judging later in Luke, and thus the villains of the story:

3.1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
2. Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests

I recognise that these are weak links between Luke and Ps 2. But I'd argue that Luke 3's list of chief priests and rulers is related to Luke 23&24.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

Post by maryhelena »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:55 am I had a random thought while waking up this morning that may already be obvious to everyone else, but which I do not think has ever occurred to me before, about the synchronism in Luke 3.1-2:

Luke 3.1-2: 1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, 2 in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zechariah, in the wilderness. / 1 Ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, ἡγεμονεύοντος Ποντίου Πειλάτου τῆς Ἰουδαίας, καὶ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Γαλιλαίας Ἡρῴδου, Φιλίππου δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας, καὶ Λυσανίου τῆς Ἀβιληνῆς τετρααρχοῦντος, 2 ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἄννα καὶ Καϊάφα, ἐγένετο ῥῆμα Θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἰωάνην τὸν Ζαχαρίου υἱὸν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ.

The point of a synchronism is obviously to identify a particular time period, by why mention so many different rulers? Lysanias, for example, is obscure enough for the given time period that it is debated whether this Lysanias is the same as the one whom Josephus dates some 70 years earlier, an heir of his, or a Lucan mistake. I am not trying to resolve that issue here and now, but am rather interested in how unhelpful Lysanias is to the overall synchronism.

But what I notice is that Luke 3.1-2 names one emperor over all (Tiberius Caesar) and then four secular rulers under him:
  1. Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea.
  2. Herod [Antipas], tetrarch of Galilee.
  3. Philip, tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis.
  4. Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene.
Three of these rulers are described as tetrarchs. The original meaning of the term is a ruler over one fourth of a kingdom or other polity (τετράς = four/4, τετράρχης = tetrarch). Augustus Caesar had divided Herod the Great's domain up, giving half to Archelaus and a quarter each to (Herod) Antipas and Philip, as per Josephus, Antiquities 17.11.4 §317-320, who were therefore known as tetrarchs.

But what if Luke took the designation tetrarch in its most obvious way, at face value, and assumed that there must be a set of four rulers, each ruling over a quarter? (This is exactly how I interpreted the term until at some point it sank in that Archelaus had received a full half.) He already had Pontius Pilate and could not do much with him besides assume that his part of Palestine amounted to a quarter of the whole, but he then went hunting for three other rulers, each of whom ruled a quarter of his own and therefore qualified as a tetrarch. Antipas and Philip he got historically right, at least, and then Lysanias rounded out the set of four (there being a Λυσανίου τετράρχου referred to in CIG 4521 and also, I am given to understand, on certain coins; so a tetrarch named Lysanias was available, no matter when we date his rule).

This assumption would explain why we have so many rulers listed, at least one of them not easy to identify. What do you think?

Ben.
I might be mistaken but I can't recall the territory of Archelaus being broken up after his removal i.e. parts removed and added to either or both tetrarchies of Antipas and Philip. Thus, Pilate, as Rome's man in Judea, is ruling over half of Herod's kingdom: Archelaus's two tetrarchies - and his title of ethnarch . If so, then Pilate, Antipas and Philip are ruling over the 4 parts of Herod's divided kingdom. Methinks that Luke is being too clever by half here. He does not need Lysanias of Abilene to make up rulers over four parts of a territory. What he has done, by adding Lysanias, is to throw a dead cat on to the history table. Luke has shifted focus from the 15th year of Tiberius to 70 years earlier.

Why? The dating of Lysanias of Abilene was important to the story he wants to tell. The dating given by Wikipedia is 40 - 36 b.c. These years are also relevant to the history of Antigonus, last King and High Priest of the Jews. Like Antigonus, Lysanias had a short rule. Like Antigonus he was killed via Marc Antony. Parallels aside, Josephus writes about a much closer connection. Not only was a sister of Antigonus married to the father of Lysanias, Ptolemy - but Ptolemy himself was involved in putting Antigonus on the throne of Judaea.


Antigonus, son of Aristobulus, was also supported by Ptolemy in his effort to establish himself as king in Judaea (Ant. xiv. 12, § 1). Josephus says that the Hasmonean king Antigonus was a "kinsman" of Ptolemy.[1] He was married to Antigonus's sister Alexandra, who had previously married Ptolemy's son Philippion. However, Ptolemy slew his son and took his bride for himself.[2] Ptolemy died just as the Parthians were invading Judaea (Jewish Wars. xiv. 13, § 3; B. J. i. 13, § 1). He was succeeded by his son Lysanias.

Ptolemy (son of Mennaeus)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy_( ... ite_note-1

This background to Lysanias of Abilene allows Luke's reference to this figure to be viewed as indicating a relevance of Hasmonean history to the story he wants to tell. A story not begun in the 15th year of Tiberius but began 70 years earlier when both Antigonus and Lysansias became rulers. Both later being executed by Marc Antony. One in 37 b.c. the other in 36 b.c.

One can of course simply decide that Luke was in error - there being no known Lysanias of Abilene in the 15th year of Tiberius. But nothing has been gained by such a decision. That Luke was interested in using 70 year time periods is also indicated by his 6 c.e. birth narrative. (and again, the mention of Quirinius is questioned re that narrative). As Aristobulus was removed by Rome in 63 b.c. so Josephus has Archelaus removed by Rome 70 years later.

The dead Lysanias cat is on the table.....tetrarchies are not themselves the issue here - it's the cat that Luke wants resurrecting... ;)
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

Post by DCHindley »

Weren't the area as far north as south Iturea part of David's (legendary) kingdom? The Romans kept appointing Herod the Great's relations to head up the territory of Chalkis (the old HQ if the Itureans) and points west (Batanea etc), as if they had a claim to these regions.

Who was the Hasmonean king who conquered some Iturean tribes north of Galilee and gave them the option to practice Jewish law (they were probably already circumcised) or be forced to migrate north? I think it was either Aristobulus I
or Alexander Jannaeus.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

Post by maryhelena »

DCHindley wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:48 am Weren't the area as far north as south Iturea part of David's (legendary) kingdom? The Romans kept appointing Herod the Great's relations to head up the territory of Chalkis (the old HQ if the Itureans) and points west (Batanea etc), as if they had a claim to these regions.

Who was the Hasmonean king who conquered some Iturean tribes north of Galilee and gave them the option to practice Jewish law (they were probably already circumcised) or be forced to migrate north? I think it was either Aristobulus I
or Alexander Jannaeus.
Aristobulus I re Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristobulus_I

Luke's mention of Lysanias is really quite intriguing. (as is Rome's willingness to connect his territory with decendants of Herod) A straightforward reading in the context of 15th year of Tiberius then Luke is in error. One can then either uphold the position that the problem is solved or leave the continuing debate to the Jesus historicists that seek a second Lysanias for the 15th year of Tiberius. Either way leaves Luke out in the cold - his fancy tetrarchies footwork unrewarded.

As seems likely the territory of Lysanias was already part of the territory of Philip - Trachonitis been given to him after the death of Herod. This area, plus the territory of Lysanias that Caesar had taken away from Zenodorus, had been given to Herod.

One Zenodorus had hired what was called the house of Lysanias, who, as he was not satisfied with its revenues, became a partner with the robbers that inhabited the Trachonites,..
---
Another happy accident there was, which was a further great advantage to Herod at this time; for Zenodorus's belly burst, and a great quantity of blood issued from him in his sickness, and he thereby departed this life at Antioch in Syria; so Caesar bestowed his country, which was no small one, upon Herod; it lay between Trachon and Galilee, and contained Ulatha, and Paneas, and the country round about.
(Ant. 15.10)

So......if Philip already had the territory of Lysanias in the 15th year of Tiberius - then, logically, a straightforward reading of Luke 3.1 is untenable.

Consequently, therefore, Luke either picked the name of Lysanias out of a hat seeking no relevance to the gospel story he is writing - or the territory of Lysanias had some real significance or relevance to the gospel story that Luke is writing.

As mentioned in earlier post, there is a historical parallel between Lysanias and the Hasmonean Antigonus. Short rule and both executed by Marc Antony. Ptolemy, father of Lysanias also involved in putting Antigonus on the Judaean throne. However, the connection to the Hasmoneans goes a step further back than even this. According to Josephus, Ptolemy was instrumental in safeguarding the children of Aristobulus after their father was killed.

But some time afterward Cesar, when he had taken Rome, and after Pompey and the senate were fled beyond the Ionian Sea, freed Aristobulus from his bonds, and resolved to send him into Syria, and delivered two legions to him, that he might set matters right, as being a potent man in that country. But Aristobulus had no enjoyment of what he hoped for from the power that was given him by Cesar; for those of Pompey's party prevented it, and destroyed him by poison; and those of Caesar's party buried him. His dead body also lay, for a good while, embalmed in honey, till Antony afterward sent it to Judea, and caused him to be buried in the royal sepulcher. But Scipio, upon Pompey's sending to him to slay Alexander, the son of Aristobulus, because the young man was accused of what offenses he had been guilty of at first against the Romans, cut off his head; and thus did he die at Antioch. But Ptolemy, the son of Menneus, who was the ruler of Chalcis, under Mount Libanus, took his brethren to him, and sent his son Philippion to Askelon to Aristobulus's wife, and desired her to send back with him her son Antigonus, and her daughters; the one of which, whose name was Alexandra, Philippion fell in love with, and married her, though afterward his father Ptolemy slew him, and married Alexandra, and continued to take care of her brethren.

Ant. 14.7

Luke in error as a historian? Or Luke, by referencing Lysanias of Abilene, is laying the history out in plain sight....Hasmonean history has, re Josephus, a very big part to play in the gospel story he is writing. No pot luck here, no picking a name of a random tetrarch out of a hat.

Sometimes a straightforward reading does not do justice to the text. If an author is doing something out of the ordinary - in this case placing Lysanias of Abilene in a context of the 15th year of Tiberius - then either dismissing this an an error or seeking to counter the claimed error by seeking a second Lysanias - fails to do justice to the text. When a straightforward reading produces such arguments then it's not the text that is being maligned but the author himself. Sometimes it really is necessary to think outside the box.....
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

Post by rgprice »

Very interesting observation Ben. Of course, the listing of all of these rulers wasn't present in Marcion's Gospel, we know due to the testimony about it.

So for me the question is: How does the listing of these rulers relate to the orthodox-Marcionite conflict? Also, when were these tetrarchs added? As a part of proto-Luke or canonical Luke?

Under the possibility that proto-Luke could pre-date Marcion, why would someone remove them?

Under the possibility that proto-Luke was written after Marcion, why would someone add them?

Under the possibility that these were not added in proto-Luke, but were rather added by the final editor of canonical Luke, why would that writer add them?

If you think that this passage is dependent upon Matthew, then that would point to the tetrarchs being added by the writer of canonical Luke. If there is no dependency on Matthew, then it would seem to me that this better fits with proto-Luke, which also added the genealogy. To me the addition of the tetrarchs also seems to make more sense for a Gospel in which Luke 3:1 was the first line of the Gospel.

But is Luke 3:1-2 really dependent on Matthew, or rather is Matthew 14:1 dependent on Luke 3:1? It seems to me that it is more likely that Matthew 14:1 draws from Luke 3:1, which would show that this was a part of proto-Luke, from which Matthew derived his Gospel.

Now, if we operate under the assumption that this was part of proto-Luke, does this help us determine if Marcion removed this from proto-Luke or if this was added to Marcion's Gospel in order to create proto-Luke? What would be the motivation to add it? What would be the motivation to remove it?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

rgprice wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:30 amBut is Luke 3:1-2 really dependent on Matthew, or rather is Matthew 14:1 dependent on Luke 3:1? It seems to me that it is more likely that Matthew 14:1 draws from Luke 3:1, which would show that this was a part of proto-Luke, from which Matthew derived his Gospel.
Why do you think that direction is more likely?
Now, if we operate under the assumption that this was part of proto-Luke, does this help us determine if Marcion removed this from proto-Luke or if this was added to Marcion's Gospel in order to create proto-Luke? What would be the motivation to add it? What would be the motivation to remove it?
I have been toying with the idea that canonical Luke is combining two different lists, one from a Jewish Christian gospel now reflected in the Gospel of the Ebionites, and the other from the proto-gospel now reflected in the Marcionite Evangelion. All that is attested for the Ebionite is Herod (who is called a king instead of a tetrarch) and Caiaphas, both Jewish rulers. All that is attested for the Marcionite is Tiberius and Pilate, both Roman rulers. Canonical Luke is much fuller, combining both Jewish and Roman rulers, as well as correctly identifying Herod as a tetrarch.

Ebionite Gospel
Canonical Luke
Marcionite Gospel
-
-
Herod the king of Judea
-
-
Caiaphas the high priest
Tiberius Caesar
Pontius Pilate the governor
Herod the tetrarch of Galilee
Philip the tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis
Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene
Annas and Caiaphas the high priest(s)
Tiberius Caesar
Pontius Pilate
-
-
-
-

The Hebrew prophetic books often specify (right at the beginning of the book) the names of those ruling when the prophet had the vision; maybe one of the Jewish Christian gospels specified the King and the High Priest, whereas a more Gentile oriented gospel known to Marcion specified the Roman emperor and governor, and then canonical Luke combined all these names into one list, corrected the title of Herod to Tetrarch, and filled it out with another couple of names on the grounds speculated in the OP.

This scenario makes a lot of sense so far as each step in the trajectory is concerned. The existence of two lists of rulers can easily inspire combining the two; the change of title for Herod from king to tetrarch makes sense simply for the sake of accuracy, and that change leading to the author filling out the list with other tetrarchs is what the OP is about.

What it lacks is any clear indication of directionality, and its rival hypotheses happen to lack the same, at least so far.

The title of Herod (king being inaccurate, tetrarch being accurate) reminds me of another issue in the gospels, that of the label for the main body of water in Galilee (sea being inaccurate, lake being accurate). Maybe those changes (king to tetrarch, sea to lake) run parallel, so to speak, as part of an effort to make the texts more accurate and less susceptible to criticism from outsiders. (Porphyry famously discusses the "sea" issue, for example.)
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

Post by maryhelena »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:56 am
I have been toying with the idea that canonical Luke is combining two different lists, one from a Jewish Christian gospel now reflected in the Gospel of the Ebionites, and the other from the proto-gospel now reflected in the Marcionite Evangelion. All that is attested for the Ebionite is Herod (who is called a king instead of a tetrarch) and Caiaphas, both Jewish rulers. All that is attested for the Marcionite is Tiberius and Pilate, both Roman rulers. Canonical Luke is much fuller, combining both Jewish and Roman rulers, as well as correctly identifying Herod as a tetrarch.

Ebionite Gospel
Canonical Luke
Marcionite Gospel
-
-
Herod the king of Judea
-
-
Caiaphas the high priest
Tiberius Caesar
Pontius Pilate the governor
Herod the tetrarch of Galilee
Philip the tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis
Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene
Annas and Caiaphas the high priest(s)
Tiberius Caesar
Pontius Pilate
-
-
-
-

The Hebrew prophetic books often specify (right at the beginning of the book) the names of those ruling when the prophet had the vision; maybe one of the Jewish Christian gospels specified the King and the High Priest, whereas a more Gentile oriented gospel known to Marcion specified the Roman emperor and governor, and then canonical Luke combined all these names into one list, corrected the title of Herod to Tetrarch, and filled it out with another couple of names on the grounds speculated in the OP.

This scenario makes a lot of sense so far as each step in the trajectory is concerned. The existence of two lists of rulers can easily inspire combining the two; the change of title for Herod from king to tetrarch makes sense simply for the sake of accuracy, and that change leading to the author filling out the list with other tetrarchs is what the OP is about.
Jewish rulers and Roman rulers all connected to the time of Pilate. That leaves out Lysanias of Abilene. An error on the part of the Lukan writer or the Lukan writer, by adding Lysanias to his list of rulers is indicating that his story goes way back beyond the 15th year of Tiberius. (Even the addition of high priest Annas widens the context of his statement. Ananus ben Seth, 6-15 c.e. Luke's nativity story being dated to 6.c.e. - a setting around 70 years from 63 b.c.)

Seeing that Luke is writing a story about how Rome, via Pilate, is involved in executing a man - the reference to Lysanias might have some relevance to his story. Lysanias, a King according to Dio, executed by Marc Antony. And of course, a step further back from Lysanias, the execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews by Marc Antony.

However, Antony was not so severely criticised by the citizens for these matters, — I mean his arrogance in dealing with the property of others; but in the matter of Cleopatra he was greatly censured because he had acknowledged as his own some of her children — the elder ones being Alexandra and Cleopatra, twins at a birth, and the younger one Ptolemy, called also Philadelphus, — and because he had presented them with extensive portions of Arabia, in the districts both of Malchus and of the Ituraeans (for he executed Lysanias, whom he himself had made king over them, on the charge that he had favoured Pacorus), and also extensive portions of Phoenicia and Palestine, parts of Crete, and Cyrene and Cyprus as well.

CASSIUS DIO
ROMAN HISTORY


Book XLIX

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/ ... o/49*.html

To view Lysanias of Abilene as Luke making a historical error regarding the 15th year of Tiberius is our error not his. It's not the 15th year of Tiberius that is at issue here - it's the remembering of past history that that year brings to mind. 40 b.c. A year relevant for both Lysanias and Antigonus - a year in which they both became rulers. Yes, Luke could have referenced Antigonus instead of Lysanias as the man Marc Antony executed - but that would have complicated the story he wants to write. A story dealing with a composite Jesus figure - a composite Jesus figure of which the execution of Antigonus reflects only the crucifixion element.

''Dion Cassius says, 'Antony now gave the Kingdom to a certain Herod, and having stretched Antigonus on the cross and scourged him, which had never been done before to a king by the Romans, he put him to death'. The sympathies of the masses for the crucified king of Judah, the heroic son of so many heroic ancestors, and the legends growing, in time, out of this historical nucleus, became, perhaps, the source from which Paul and the evangelists preached Jesus as the crucified king of Judea.'' (History of the Hebrew's Second Commonwealth, 1880, Cincinnati, page 206)

The book is by Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900), scholar and novelist
Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900) was a Czech-born Jewish American scholar, novelist, playright, rabbi and leader of American Reform Judaism, first president of Hebrew Union College in 1875. Was among the first Jewish scholars to deal with Christian origins, including both Christian and Rabbinic origins in his introduction to "The Hebrews' Second Commonwealth."
http://collections.americanjewisharchiv ... wealth.pdf

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFrFLnQkqp4
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:55 am I had a random thought while waking up this morning that may already be obvious to everyone else, but which I do not think has ever occurred to me before, about the synchronism in Luke 3.1-2:

Luke 3.1-2: 1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, 2 in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zechariah, in the wilderness. / 1 Ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, ἡγεμονεύοντος Ποντίου Πειλάτου τῆς Ἰουδαίας, καὶ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Γαλιλαίας Ἡρῴδου, Φιλίππου δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας, καὶ Λυσανίου τῆς Ἀβιληνῆς τετρααρχοῦντος, 2 ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἄννα καὶ Καϊάφα, ἐγένετο ῥῆμα Θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἰωάνην τὸν Ζαχαρίου υἱὸν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ.

The point of a synchronism is obviously to identify a particular time period, by why mention so many different rulers? Lysanias, for example, is obscure enough for the given time period that it is debated whether this Lysanias is the same as the one whom Josephus dates some 70 years earlier, an heir of his, or a Lucan mistake. I am not trying to resolve that issue here and now, but am rather interested in how unhelpful Lysanias is to the overall synchronism.

But what I notice is that Luke 3.1-2 names one emperor over all (Tiberius Caesar) and then four secular rulers under him:
  1. Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea.
  2. Herod [Antipas], tetrarch of Galilee.
  3. Philip, tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis.
  4. Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene.
Three of these rulers are described as tetrarchs. The original meaning of the term is a ruler over one fourth of a kingdom or other polity (τετράς = four/4, τετράρχης = tetrarch). Augustus Caesar had divided Herod the Great's domain up, giving half to Archelaus and a quarter each to (Herod) Antipas and Philip, as per Josephus, Antiquities 17.11.4 §317-320, who were therefore known as tetrarchs.

But what if Luke took the designation tetrarch in its most obvious way, at face value, and assumed that there must be a set of four rulers, each ruling over a quarter? (This is exactly how I interpreted the term until at some point it sank in that Archelaus had received a full half.) He already had Pontius Pilate and could not do much with him besides assume that his part of Palestine amounted to a quarter of the whole, but he then went hunting for three other rulers, each of whom ruled a quarter of his own and therefore qualified as a tetrarch. Antipas and Philip he got historically right, at least, and then Lysanias rounded out the set of four (there being a Λυσανίου τετράρχου referred to in CIG 4521 and also, I am given to understand, on certain coins; so a tetrarch named Lysanias was available, no matter when we date his rule).

This assumption would explain why we have so many rulers listed, at least one of them not easy to identify. What do you think?

Ben.
JW:
The simple explanation is that in general GMark is the base source for GLuke and regarding Herod:

6
14 King Herod
GLuke knew that GMark contained historical errors and used Josephus, the official Roman historian of 1st century Israel to try and correct them. Per Josephus this Herod was not King Herod but Tetrarch Herod. GLuke then found three other identified and related Tetrarchs in Josephus as best she could to try and present a sense of historical completeness.


Josephus

HISTORIAN, n. A broad-gauge gossip.

Has There Ever Been Colonialization, Genocide and an Endless Series of Crimes Against the Universe in Modern Israel?
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

Post by Charles Wilson »

maryhelena wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:36 amAntigonus, son of Aristobulus, was also supported by Ptolemy in his effort to establish himself as king in Judaea (Ant. xiv. 12, § 1). Josephus says that the Hasmonean king Antigonus was a "kinsman" of Ptolemy.
PLZ note that "Kinsman" may be a "Technical Term" referencing the Greek Ordering of a Royal Court. See: A H M Jones, The Herods of Judaea, for ex. This might change the Trajectory of the above slightly...

Herod ordered his Court on Greek Lines (another reference to Nicholas of Damascus. See Josephus.)

In the NT, "The Banquet" may show that this aspect was known to NT Authors: You are told to sit with your "Friends" until you are asked to Move Up to a higher Station so you may be "Honored" by your "Friends". Hence:

"Friends".
"Honored Friends"
"Guards of the Body"
"Kinsmen"

Jones, Herods of Judaea:

"As he replaced the sacerdotal Sanhedrin by a secular council, so Herod built up to replace the old hereditary aristocracy a new aristocracy of service whose members should owe their rank and their wealth to him and to him alone. They were graded according to regular Hellenistic practice in progressive ranks of dignity, "the friends" being the lowest, then "the most honoured friends", then "the guards of the body", and finally "the kinsmen"; the last title, it may be noted, was like others purely honorific and implied no real relationship" [Emph. added.]

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

Post by maryhelena »

Charles Wilson wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 9:03 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:36 amAntigonus, son of Aristobulus, was also supported by Ptolemy in his effort to establish himself as king in Judaea (Ant. xiv. 12, § 1). Josephus says that the Hasmonean king Antigonus was a "kinsman" of Ptolemy.
PLZ note that "Kinsman" may be a Technical Term" referencing the Greek Ordering of a Royal Court. See: A H M Jones, The Herods of Judaea, for ex. This might change the Trajectory of the above slightly...

Herod ordered his Court on Greek Lines (another reference to Nicholas of Damascus. See Josephus.)

In the NT, "The Banquet" may show that this aspect was known to NT Authors: You are told to sit with your "Friends" until you are asked to Move Up to a higher Station so you may be "Honored" by your "Friends". Hence:

"Friends".
"Honored Friends"
"Guards of the Body"
"Kinsmen"

Jones, Herods of Judaea:

"As he replaced the sacerdotal Sanhedrin by a secular council, so Herod built up to replace the old hereditary aristocracy a new aristocracy of service whose members should owe their rank and their wealth to him and to him alone. They were graded according to regular Hellenistic practice in progressive ranks of dignity, "the friends" being the lowest, then "the most honoured friends", then "the guards of the body", and finally "the kinsmen"; the last title, it may be noted, was like others purely honorific and implied no real relationship" [Emph. added.]

CW
Since I've no knowledge of Greek - I have to rely on how scholars are translating the Greek term into English. And I suppose, different scholars might find different reasons for what English words they choose to use. That said, I take your point about the use of 'Kinsmen'.

I did check: JOSEPHUS- JEWISH WAR AND ITS SLAVONIC VERSION by H. Leeming (Author), K. Leeming (Author)

Hatred of Herod had led to his taking part
in bringing back the exiled Antigonus.
son of Aristobulus: and in this
he was influenced still more by Fabius.
whom Antigonus had induced by bribery
to assist in his restoration.
All the exile" s expenses were met
by his brother-in-law Ptolemy.
These enemies were opposed by Herod
at the entry to the territory of Judaea,
where a battle took place in which he was
victorious.
Antigonus being banished from the country.
Herod returned to Jerusalem. where his
success won him all men's hearts.
Even those who had hitherto stood aloof
were now reconciled by his marriage into
the family of Hyrcanus.
His first wife was a Jewess of some
standing named Doris.
by whom he had a son Antipater:
but now he married Mariamme. daughter
of Alexander the son of Aristobulus.
and grand-daughter of Hyrcanus.
and thus became kinsman of the king.

War 1. 239-241

So, in this translation we have 'brother-in-law' instead of 'kinsman' for Antigonus and Ptolemy and ' kinsman' for Herod instead of 'relative' re his relationship to Aristobulus and Hyrcanus - 'kinsman' to Hasmoneon rulers. Oh, well, I'm sure these translations won't make everyone happy - but that's often the case with translating one language into another while attempting to convey the context.

---------
Note: The Slavonic version only contains a variation of War 1. 242. - thereby missing 239-240.

Then putting away his wife, Doris

he betrothed <another.>
the daughter of Aristobulus,
Hyrcanus" brother,

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Josephus-Jewis ... 869&sr=8-1
Post Reply