Cege

What is the significance of the author of Luke using "tetrarch" to describe Herod Antipas?

The writer of Matthew uses tetrarch and king. Mark 6:14 uses "king". Are the gospels of Mark and Matthew incorrect?

spin

Mark just didn't seem to know better. Matt dropped most of the Marcan "king" references, but left one to my knowledge. So, both Mt and Lk had the right idea, but Lk was better redacted.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Cege,

Tetrarch was the official precise title. A king functionally.
Luke is recognized for using the precise titles and all the
Gospel writers are 'correct'.

This is not at all unusual usage.

Plutarch's Lives says
"Deiotarus was king or tetrarch of Galatia in Asia Minor"

http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/2220.html
"Monobazus was king or tetrarch of Adiabene in a. d. 63"

Cicero: A Sketch of His Life and Works
"Brutus ... made an oration .. in favor of old Deiotarus, king or tetrarch"

The commentator of Josephus, likely Whitson, says:
"after he was made tetrarch or king"

Luke uses Tetrarch 4 times.
As mentioned Luke really is known for the precision usages.

And Matthew shows the interchangeability is deliberate,
there is no 'fatigue' involved

Matthew 14:1
At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus,

14:9
And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake,
and them which sat with him at meat,
he commanded it to be given her.

Shalom,
Steven

spin

Here is a comparative presentation of the data regarding Matthew's fatigue in removing the references to "king" regarding Herod.

• Mt 14:1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, 2 and he said to his attendants, "This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him."
  
  Mk 6:14 King Herod heard about this, for Jesus' name had become well known... 16 But when Herod heard this, he said, "John, the man I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!"
  
  Lk 9:7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard all about what had taken place and he was perplexed... 9 Herod said, "John I beheaded, but who is this about whom I hear such things?"
  .
• Mt 14:3 Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, 4 for John had been saying to him: "It is not lawful for you to have her." 5 Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered him a prophet.
  
  Mk 6:17 For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, whom he had married. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." 19 So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to, 20 because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled[d]; yet he liked to listen to him.
  
  Lk 3:19 But Herod the tetrarch, who had been rebuked by him because of Herodias, his brother's wife, and because of all the evil things that Herod had done, 20 added to them all by shutting John in prison.
  .
• Mt 14:6 On Herod's birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for them and pleased Herod so much 7 that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. 8 Prompted by her mother, she said, "Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist."
  
  Mk 6:21 Finally the opportune time came. On his birthday Herod gave a banquet for his high officials and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. 22 When the daughter of Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests.
  
  The king said to the girl, "Ask me for anything you want, and I'll give it to you." 23 And he promised her with an oath, "Whatever you ask I will give you, up to half my kingdom." 24 She went out and said to her mother, "What shall I ask for?" "The head of John the Baptist," she answered. 25 At once the girl hurried in to the king with the request: "I want you to give me right now the head of John the Baptist on a platter."
  .
• Mt 14:9 The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted 10 and had John beheaded in the prison. 11 His head was brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who carried it to her mother.
  
  Mk 6:26 The king was greatly distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he did not want to refuse her. 27 So he immediately sent an executioner with orders to bring John's head. The man went, beheaded John in the prison, 28 and brought back his head on a platter. He presented it to the girl, and she gave it to her mother.

It should be clear that both the Matt and Luke traditions changed the Marcan text, removing all but one of the references to "king" referring to Herod the tetrarch. This should indicate that "tetrarch" was the preferred way of referring to the ruler, so they did away with the "king" references... well, all but the one that got away.

If, of course, you can explain the editorial policy regarding this issue differently, I'd willingly read it.


spin

Steven Avery

The color is nice, but using the NIV is very strange for what is supposed to be a scholarship presentation.

Anyway I already showed about that historically the two words were often used interchangably totally negating your presumption that one method is "preferred".

Luke probably chose Tetrarch multiple times because, as in the many cases of diverse Roman titles shown before, Luke is specially precise about titles, giving us what was used in a particular place in the particular time. So Luke is really not even a factor in the discussion. He simply gave us what he expect from him, consistent with his methodology and reputation for preferring the precise titles.

And of course precision is not necessarily more "correct" than another common or contextual usage. (Simple example, Nancy Pelosi may be called a congresswoman or a member of the U.S. house of representatives, the second is more precise but it would be a mistake for someone reading 100 years later to try to make a big analysis of why one term was used rather than another. Oh, they were so fatigued that they didn't change one instance of congressman to representative ! )

You also presume Markan priority, which I have made clear I think is an error.

As with the supposed interpolations you first determine your preferred theories and then you tamper with the NT to try to make it fit your theories. So transparent.

Simply a methdology of manipulation, of no import to real scholarship.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

It's aim was functional.

It was available, but then I modified it a few times for accuracy's sake.

That's why it was omitted by Luke and got rid of all but once by Matt. Deal with the text, not your own apologetics.

This might have had a modicum of conviction if it were only Luke.

Both Luke and Matt have it right. There is a political history behind the correct name. Kingship had been granted to Herod the Great, but it had been taken away from two of the three heirs to his kingdom, then the third was forcibly removed, ending the kingship, until it was specifically given to Agrippa I. It was clearly an issue in the specific context.

And you believe that the Marcan author, instead of copying a grammatically superior source, dumbed it down? You believe that this writer coincidentally omitted those sections of Luke that bear "Lucan" characteristics, including terms like nomodidaskaloi, teachers of the law? Or the Matthean "kingdom of heaven"? Certainly no fatigue there. Why did he leave out Lucan stuff like the birth traditions? The resurrection? The whole long journey to Jerusalem? So far Lucan or Matthean priority looks like a crock of crap that causes more complexity to the model of textual development. These days it's mainly only considered my non-scholars.

What's transparent is you prefer to be clueless. If you don't like the linguistic theory behind my dealings with Paul and the manifestations of kurios referring to Jesus, at least show that you understand what's at stake, rather than this "whirrr, does not compute, buzz, must be wrong, click" approach.

If you categorize it as such, I don't feel so bad. :wave:

jgibson000

Horse hockey. You've done no such thing. All you've done is to show how certain translators have rendered certain lines of certain texts by certain ancient authors. To show what you claim to show -- i.e., "that historically the two words were often used interchangably" -- you need to produce the text behind the translations.

Please do so.

And please do not tell me, as it is your want to do when someone asks you for primary texts you "quote" in English translation, that I am "welcome to" (=I'm the one who should) produce these texts. You are the one who is making the claim that Cicero and Plutarch etc, use "king" and tetrach" interchangably. So you are the one who is obliged to do so.


JG

jgibson000

More Unadulterated Horse Hockey!! A stinking pile of it!!

This is NOT anything Plutarch says. It is a quotation of a note attached by Aubery Smith and George, editors of Dryden's translation of Plutarch's lives, to a section of Dyden's translation of Book LXXIII of The Life of Pompey!!!

It does not -- and cannot possibly -- serve as evidence of any kind that "historically" let alone by contemporaries of "Luke", the titles of "king" and "tetrarch" were used interchangeably!!

Your thinking that it does and your putting forward this tripe as "evidence" for your claim is further documentation of why you have the reputation you do on academic lists as one who is absolutely clueless -- and clueless about your cluelessness -- on matters biblical and historical.

I've seen you make some whoppers, Steve, but this is way up there at the top.

JG

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

All of this bluster mostly because a reference was similar to the one I gave from Whitson? The idea of the historians who look at the era. I was giving "Plutarch's Lives" as a book source and would better have given the URL and the page and it could be seen as similar to the Whitson's reference.

The four references remain valid, especially as they are not related to the context of the Gospel writers, where one could say that the references are predicated on the way Mark, Luke and Matthew referenced the rulership at issue.

Mark and Matthew give us immediately two sources for the era who show us the interchangebility with the full context of the Gospel writers.

Does anybody other than spin claim that a Tetrarch could not or would not be referred to as a King in some contexts ?

Does Gibson make that claim .. who knows ?

Remember the real affirmative claim here is implied (albeit not directly stated) by spin .. that it is "wrong" to call Herod Antipas a King because he was Tetrarch. Spin never gave his scholarly evidence for that claim and I, in five minutes of checking, found four references that strongly counter his implied claim. That is sufficiente at this time.

Amazing.

Shalom shabbat,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

That is correct in the technical precision sense. It tells us very little about whether the common folks in Galilee and other areas could or would call Antipas "King" while he had the office of Tetrarch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin And you believe that the Marcan author, instead of copying a grammatically superior source,

Now you have switched to another issue. If you want to raise a grammatical issue you should do so in a coherent fashion.

You seem to make a big point that Mark wrote differently than Luke. Wow. He may even have written in Latin or Graeco-Latin.

And of course your idea that Mark left out the resurrection I consider to be nonsense. Enough said for now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin the linguistic theory behind my dealings with Paul and the manifestations of kurios referring to Jesus,

The"linguistic theory" looks weak. However the abomination is not the theory itself, it is your attempt to try to use your linguistic theory to trump and tamper with the hard evidence. Greek, Latin and Syriac texts and early church writers. And claim your absurd multiple interpretations just wherever you need to claim them for your theory.

Such is simply nonsense, an unscholarly joke.

Shalom,
Steven Avery