Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 03-10-2013, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It would seem then that Herod began as a tetrarch with his brothers and that some early traditions - i.e. the Jew of Celsus - understood him to have always remained a tetrarch.

JD55685. Bronze 2 prutot, Hendin 1178a, RPC I 4905 var (closed diadem), aVF, Jerusalem mint, weight 3.576g, maximum diameter 19.6mm, die axis 0o, obverse ΗΡΩ∆ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ (of King Herod), cross surrounded by open diadem; reverse tripod table, flat object upon it, flanked by palm branches; $90.00

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/cat...ns.com/Coins2/

stephan huller · 03-10-2013, 08:13 AM

Yes I am well aware of these coins (none ever say 'King of the Jews' interestingly). But is the sharp distinction between 'tetrarch' and 'king' real or something cultivated by our over-reliance on Josephus? In other words can a tetrarchy have a 'king'?

stephan huller · 03-10-2013, 08:18 AM

There is for instance some discussion that the confusion over the term 'tetrarch' and 'tetrarchy' derives from the system of government imposed on the Gauls by Julius Caesar.

Quote:

In the settlement of 64 BC, Galatia became a client-state of the Roman empire, the old constitution disappeared, and three chiefs (wrongly styled "tetrarchs") were appointed, one for each tribe. But this arrangement soon gave way before the ambition of one of these tetrarchs, Deiotarus, the contemporary of Cicero and Julius Caesar, who made himself master of the other two tetrarchies and was finally recognized by the Romans as 'king' of Galatia.

and again:

Quote:

The constitution of the Galatian state is described by Strabo: conformably to custom, each tribe was divided into cantons, each governed by a chief ('tetrarch') of its own with a judge under him, whose powers were unlimited except in cases of murder, which were tried before a council of 300 drawn from the twelve cantons and meeting at a holy place, twenty miles southwest of Ancyra, written in Greek as Drynemeton (Gallic *daru-nemeton holy place of oak). It is likely it was a sacred oak grove, since the name means "sanctuary of the oaks" (from drys, meaning "oak" and nemeton, meaning "sacred ground"). The local population of Cappadocians were left in control of the towns and most of the land, paying tithes to their new overlords, who formed a military aristocracy and kept aloof in fortified farmsteads, surrounded by their bands.

Could it be that the term was something of the equivalent of 'ethnarch' (i.e. the ruler of a people)?

stephan huller · 03-10-2013, 08:24 AM

Here is the section from Strabo's Geography that has puzzled scholars for generations:

Quote:

To the south of the Paphlagonians are the Galatians, of whom there are three tribes; two of them, the Trocmi and the Tolistobogii, have their names from their chiefs; the third, the Tectosages, from the tribe of that name in Celtica. The Galatians took possession of this country after wandering about for a long period, and overrunning the country subject to the Attalic and the Bithynian kings, until they received by a voluntary cession the present Galatia, or Gallo-Grascia, as it is called. Leonnorius seems to have been the chief leader of these people when they passed over into Asia. There were three nations that spoke the same language, and in no respect differed from one another. Each of them was divided into four portions called tetrarchies, and had its own tetrarch, its own judge, and one superintendent of the army, all of whom were under the control of the tetrarch, and two subordinate [320] superintendents of the army. The Council of the twelve Tetrarchs consisted of three hundred persons, who assembled at a place called the Drynemetum. The council determined causes relative to murder, the others were decided by the tetrarchs and the judges. Such, anciently, was the political constitution of Galatia; but, in our time, the government was in the hands of three chiefs, then of two, and at last it. was administered by Deiotarus, who was succeeded by Amyntas. At present, the Romans possess this as well as all the country which was subject to Amyntas, and have reduced it into one province. [Geography 12.5.1]

maryhelena · 03-10-2013, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Yes I am well aware of these coins (none ever say 'King of the Jews' interestingly). But is the sharp distinction between 'tetrarch' and 'king' real or something cultivated by our over-reliance on Josephus? In other words can a tetrarchy have a 'king'?

Tetrarchy

Quote:

Although the term "tetrarch" was current in antiquity, it was never used of the imperial college under Diocletian. Instead, the term was used to describe independent portions of a kingdom that were ruled under separate leaders. The tetrarchy of Judaea, established after the death of Herod the Great, is the most famous example of the antique tetrarchy.

my bolding

As to "king of the Jews' - it would have been the height of insensitivity to the Jews for Herod to claim that title for himself. The event of 37 b.c. and the execution of Antigonus - why court further trouble with the Jews...??

stephan huller · 03-10-2013, 08:34 AM

Yes but who can trust Josephus. Scholarship is too trusting of Josephus. Antiquities says that Glaphyra after Alexander was killed by Herod ultimately married her father and then her mother appeared in a dream to the father before he died (if memory serves me correctly). There are just too many silly stories to make any of this credible.

Let's consider the example of Archelaus of Commagne for a moment. Was he a 'king' of 'tetrarchy'? Here is what Strabo says:

Quote:

The Lesser Armenia, which was in the possession of different persons at different times, according to the pleasure of the Romans, was at last subject to Archelaus. The Tibareni, however, and Chaldaei, extending as far as Colchis, Pharnacia, and Trapezus, are under the government of Pythodoris, a prudent woman, and capable of presiding over the management of public affairs. She is the daughter of Pythodorus of Tralles. She was the wife of Polemo, and reigned conjointly with him for some time. She succeeded, after his death, to the throne. He died in the country of the Aspurgiani, a tribe of barbarians living about Sindica. She had two sons by Polemo, and a daughter who was married to Cotys the Sapaean. He was treacherously murdered, and she became a widow. She had children by him, the eldest of whom is now king. Of the sons of Pythodoris, one as a private person, administers, together with his mother, the affairs of the kingdom, the other has been lately made king of the Greater Armenia. Pythodoris however married Archelaus, and remained with him till his death. At present she is a widow, and in possession of the countries before mentioned, and of others still more beautiful, of which we shall next speak.

And again:

Quote:

The affairs of Comana were administered as has been described in the time of the kings. Pompey, when he had obtained the power, appointed Archelaus priest, and assigned to him a district of two schoeni, or 60 stadia in circuit, in addition to the sacred territory, and gave orders to the inhabitants to obey Archelaus. He was their governor, and master of the sacred slaves who inhabited the city, but had not the power of selling them. The slaves amounted to no less than six thousand.

This Archelaus was the son of that Archelaus who received honours from Sulla and the senate; he was the friend of Gabinius, a person of consular rank. When the former was sent into Syria, he came with the expectation of accompanying him, when he was making preparations for the Parthian war, out the senate would not permit him to do so, and he abandoned this, and conceived a greater design.

Ptolemy, the father of Cleopatra, happened at this time to be ejected from his kingdom by the Egyptians. His daughter however, the elder sister of Cleopatra, was in possession of the throne. When inquiries were making in order to marry her to a. husband of royal descent, Archelaus presented himself to those who were negotiating the affair, and pretended to be the son of Mithridates Eupator. He was accepted, but reigned only six months. He was killed by Gabinius in a pitched battle, in his attempt to restore Ptolemy. [Geography 12.34]

Here's already one problem I see in Josephus. If memory serves me correctly Josephus says that Archelaus was married to his daughter when he died, Strabo (a much more reliable source because he was from this region http://books.google.com/books?id=UKp...helaus&f=false) says that his wife remained his wife until he died - i.e. no crazy incest story. These ridiculous stories could be argued to include Herod's slaying of his two sons. There is no corroboration for any of this. Will have to double check Antiquities to see if Josephus says what I just said that he said.

stephan huller · 03-10-2013, 08:44 AM

Here's the stupid story in Josephus that ends Book Seventeen:

Quote:

THEN Archelaus was entered on his ethnarchy, and was come into Judea, he accused Joazar, the son of Boethus, of assisting the seditious, and took away the high priesthood from him, and put Eleazar his brother in his place. He also magnificently rebuilt the royal palace that had been at Jericho, and he diverted half the water with which the village of Neara used to be watered, and drew off that water into the plain, to water those palm trees which he had there planted: he also built a village, and put his own name upon it, and called it Archelais. Moreover, he transgressed the law of our fathers (23) and married Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, who had been the wife of his brother Alexander, which Alexander had three children by her, while it was a thing detestable among the Jews to marry the brother's wife. Nor did this Eleazar abide long in the high priesthood, Jesus, the son of Sie, being put in his room while he was still living.

2. But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar, and that especially because they knew he had broken the commands of Caesar, which obliged him to behave himself with moderation among them. Whereupon Caesar, when he heard it, was very angry, and called for Archelaus's steward, who took care of his affairs at Rome, and whose name was Archelaus also; and thinking it beneath him to write to Archelaus, he bid him sail away as soon as possible, and bring him to us: so the man made haste in his voyage, and when he came into Judea, he found Archelaus feasting with his friends; so he told him what Caesar had sent him about, and hastened him away. And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what certain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make, both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him.

3. Now, before Archelaus was gone up to Rome upon this message, he related this dream to his friends: That he saw ears of corn, in number ten, full of wheat, perfectly ripe, which ears, as it seemed to him, were devoured by oxen. And when he was awake and gotten up, because the vision appeared to beof great importance to him, he sent for the diviners, whose study was employed about dreams. And while some were of one opinion, and some of another, (for all their interpretations did not agree,) Simon, a man of the sect of the Essens, desired leave to speak his mind freely, and said that the vision denoted a change in the affairs of Archelaus, and that not for the better; that oxen, because that animal takes uneasy pains in his labors, denoted afflictions, and indeed denoted, further, a change of affairs, because that land which is ploughed by oxen cannot remain in its former state; and that the ears of corn being ten, determined the like number of years, because an ear of corn grows in one year; and that the time of Archelaus's government was over. And thus did this man expound the dream. Now on the fifth day after this dream came first to Archelaus, the other Archelaus, that was sent to Judea by Caesar to call him away, came hither also.

4. The like accident befell Glaphyra his wife, who was the daughter of king Archelaus, who, as I said before, was married, while she was a virgin, to Alexander, the son of Herod, and brother of Archelaus; but since it fell out so that Alexander was slain by his father, she was married to Juba, the king of Lybia; and when he was dead, and she lived in widowhood in Cappadocia with her father, Archclaus divorced his former wife Mariamne, and married her, so great was his affection for this Glphyra; who, during her marriage to him, saw the following dream: She thought she saw Alexander standing by her, at which she rejoiced, and embraced him with great affection; but that he complained o her, and said, O Glaphyra! thou provest that saying to be true, which assures us that women are not to be trusted. Didst not thou pledge thy faith to me? and wast not thou married to me when thou wast a virgin? and had we not children between us? Yet hast thou forgotten the affection I bare to thee, out of a desire of a second husband. Nor hast thou been satisfied with that injury thou didst me, but thou hast been so bold as to procure thee a third husband to lie by thee, and in an indecent and imprudent manner hast entered into my house, and hast been married to Archelaus, thy husband and my brother. However, I will not forget thy former kind affection for me, but will set thee free from every such reproachful action, and cause thee to be mine again, as thou once wast. When she had related this to her female companions, in a few days' time she departed this life.

5. Now I did not think these histories improper for the present discourse, both because my discourse now is concerning kings, and otherwise also on account of the advantage hence to be drawn, as well for the confirmation of the immortality of the soul, as of the providence of God over human affairs, I thought them fit to be set down; but if any one does not believe such relations, let him indeed enjoy his own opinion, but let him not hinder another that would thereby encourage himself in virtue. So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus.

Do you finally see how stupid this source? How utterly unreliable? When I was reading this story last night I thought - this is impossible. Then sure enough - when we consult Strabo - we see that this is entirely made up, an invention. How much more of this history is simply made up? I bet about half of Josephus Jewish history is just a complete lie.

aa5874 · 03-10-2013, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Here's already one problem I see in Josephus. If memory serves me correctly Josephus says that Archelaus was married to his daughter when he died, Strabo (a much more reliable source because he was from this region http://books.google.com/books?id=UKp...helaus&f=false) says that his wife remained his wife until he died - i.e. no crazy incest story. These ridiculous stories could be argued to include Herod's slaying of his two sons. There is no corroboration for any of this.

Will have to double check Antiquities to see if Josephus says what I just said that he said.

What??? You don't know what you were talking about???

You are going to double-check what you just said??

What else did you say that you did NOT double check??

Your posts are extremely disturbing to me.

I may need to double check every thing you ever said on this forum.

stephan huller · 03-10-2013, 08:52 AM

Apparently Archelaus's territory of Comana was given to his wife Pythodoris and ultimately expanded:

Quote:

Such is the character of Comana.
37. All the country around is subject to Pythodoris, and she possesses also Phanaroea, the Zelitis, and the Megalopolitis.

We have already spoken of Phanaroea.

In the district Zelitis is the city Zela, built upon the mound of Semiramis. It contains the temple of Anaitis, whom the Armenians also worship. Sacrifices are performed with more pomp than in other places, and all the people of Pontus take oaths here in affairs of highest concern. The multitude of the sacred menials, and the honours conferred upon the priests, were in the time of the kings, upon the plan which I have before described. At present, however, everything is under the power of Pythodoris, but many persons had previously reduced the number of the sacred attendants, injured the property and diminished the revenue belonging to the [310] temple. The adjacent district of Zelitis, (in which is the city Zela, on the mound of Semiramis,) was reduced by being divided into several governments. Anciently, the kings did not govern Zela as a city, but regarded it as a temple of the Persian gods; the priest was the director of everything relating to its administration. It was inhabited by a multitude of sacred menials, by the priest, who possessed great wealth, and by his numerous attendants; the sacred territory was under the authority of the priest, and it was his own property. Pompey added many provinces to Zelitis, and gave the name of city to Zela, as well as to Megalopolis. He formed Zelitis, Culupene, and Camisene, into one district. The two latter bordered upon the Lesser Armenia, and upon Laviansene. Fossile salt was found in them, and there was an ancient fortress called Camisa, at present in ruins. The Roman governors who next succeeded assigned one portion of these two governments to the priests of Comana, another to the priest of Zela, and another to Ateporix, a chief of the family of the tetrarchs of Galatia; upon his death, this portion, which was not large, became subject to the Romans under the name of a province. This little state is a political body of itself, Carana being united with it as a colony, and hence the district has the name of Caranitis. The other parts are in the possession of Pythodoris, and Dyteutus.

stephan huller · 03-10-2013, 08:59 AM

It would seem that Strabo never calls Archelaus 'king' nor his territory a 'kingdom' but Josephus consistently does the opposite - i.e. in Josephus he is 'king Archelaus of Cappadocia' and his territory a kingdom.

More references to Archelaus in Strabo Geography book 12:

Quote:

Among the nations that speak the same language, the ancients placed the Cataonians by themselves, contra-distinguishing them from the Cappadocians, whom they considered as a different people. In the enumeration of the nations they placed Cataonia after Cappadocia, then the Euphrates, and the nations on the other side of that river, so as to include even Melitene in Cataonia, although Melitene lies between Cataonia and the Euphrates, approaches close to Commagene, and constitutes a tenth portion of Cappadocia, [277] according to the division of the country into ten provinces. For the kings in our times who preceded Archelaus usually divided the kingdom of Cappadocia in this manner.

Cataonia is a tenth portion of Cappadocia. In our time each province had its own governor, and since no difference appears in the language of the Cataonians compared with that of the other Cappadocians, nor any difference in their customs, it is surprising how entirely the characteristic marks of a foreign nation have disappeared, yet they were distinct nations; Ariarathes, the first who bore the title of king of the Cappadocians, annexed the Cataonians to Cappadocia.

and again:

Quote:

The Macedonians obtained possession of Cappadocia after it had been divided by the Persians into two satrapies, and permitted, partly with and partly without the consent of the people, the satrapies to be altered to two kingdoms, one of which they called Cappadocia Proper, and Cappadocia [278] near the Taurus, or Cappadocia the Great; the other they called Pontus, but according to other writers, Cappadocia on Pontus.

We are ignorant at present how Cappadocia the Great was at first distributed; upon the death of Archelaus the king, Caesar and the senate decreed that it should be a Roman province. But when the country was divided in the time of Archelaus and of preceding kings into ten provinces, they reckoned five near the Taurus, Melitene, Cataonia, Cilicia, Tyanltis, and Garsauritis; the remaining five were Laviansene, Sargarausene, Saravene, Chamanene, Morimene. The Romans afterwards assigned to the predecessors of Archelaus an eleventh province formed out of Cilicia, consisting of the country about Castabala and Cybistra, extending to Derbe, belonging to Antipater, the robber. Cilicia Trachea about Elseussa was assigned to Archelaus, and all the country which served as the haunts of pirates. [12.1.1]

and again:

Quote:

In Tyanitis, one of the ten provinces above mentioned, is the city Tyana. But with these I do not reckon the cities that were afterwards added, Castabala, and Cybistra, and those in Cilicia Tracheia, to which belongs Elaeussa, a small [282] fertile island, which Archelaus furnished with excellent buildings, where he passed the greater part of his time.

and again:

Quote:

The breadth of the country from Pontus to the Taurus is about 1800 stadia the length from Lycaonia and Phrygia, as far as the Euphrates to the east, and Armenia, is about 3000 stadia. The soil is fertile, and abounds with fruits of the earth, particularly corn, and with cattle of all kinds. Although it lies more to the south than Pontus, it is colder. Bagadania, although a plain country, and situated more towards the south than any district in Cappadocia, (for it lies at the foot of the Taurus,) produces scarcely any fruit-bearing trees. It affords pasture for wild asses, as does a large portion of the other parts of the country, particularly that about Garsauira, Lycaonia, and Morimene.

In Cappadocia is found the red earth called the Sinopic, which is better than that of any other country. The Spanish only can rival it. It had the name of Sinopic, because the merchants used to bring it down from Sinope, before the traffic of the Ephesians extended as far as the people of Cappadocia. It is said that even plates of crystal and of the onyx stone were discovered by the miners of Archelaus near the country of the Galatians. There was a place where was found a white stone of the colour of ivory in pieces of the size of small whetstones, from which were made handles for small swords. Another place produced large masses of transparent stone for windows, which were exported.

The boundary of Pontus and Cappadocia is a mountainous range parallel to the Taurus, commencing from the western extremities of Chammanene, (where stands Dasmenda, a fortress built upon a precipice,) and extending to the eastern parts of [285] Laviansene. Both Chammanene and Laviansene are provinces of Cappadocia.

11. When the Romans, after the defeat of Antiochus, first governed Asia, they made treaties of friendship and alliance both with the nations and with the kings. This honour was conferred upon the other kings separately and independently, but upon the king of Cappadocia in common with the nation. On the extinction of the royal race, the Romans admitted the independence of the Cappadocians according to the treaty of friendship and alliance which they had made with the nation. The deputies excused themselves from accepting the liberty which was offered to them, declaring that they were unable to bear it, and requested that a king might be appointed. The Romans were surprised that any people should be unwilling to enjoy liberty, but permitted them to elect by suifrage any one they pleased from among themselves. They elected Ariobarzanes. The race became extinct in the third generation. Archelaus, who was not connected with the nation, was appointed king by Antony.

So much respecting the Greater Cappadocia.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2013, 08:13 AM	#12
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yes I am well aware of these coins (none ever say 'King of the Jews' interestingly). But is the sharp distinction between 'tetrarch' and 'king' real or something cultivated by our over-reliance on Josephus? In other words can a tetrarchy have a 'king'?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.