jgibson000

What references? Give me the text of Plutarch and of Cicero and of Josephus where the terms "king" and "tetrarch" are used interchangeably and/or which show that these or any ancient author knew or thought that they were equivalent titles.

JG

jgibson000

Here are the only places in Plutarch where BASILEUS and TETRARCHS appear together.

Plutarch Ant 56.7.1; 58.11.3.

Please show me how they support your claim that ancient authors viewed the terms as equivalents and/or knew/thought that the terms could be used interchangeably.

JG

Steven Avery

The issue isn't equivalency, as you well know, so please drop the strawmen.

The issue is whether a Tetrarch might be called a King, eg. by his subjects. Or by the Tetrarch himself and his court, the context of Mark 6.

Is it your claim that that would be wrong, impossible or what ?
I think it would be helpful to know what position you are actually taking.

The issue of academic lists where Jeffrey Gibson moderates are probably boring here, perhaps off-topic (or needing their own thread) and for some readers would be intermixed with their view of the Jeffrey Gibson 'posting style' .. however if you like we could discuss such issues a bit later, in a few days.

We could even contrast the moderator reactions to my posts on scholarly lists that are GI, Gibson-Influenced, and those that are not. Or the difference between forums who have a higher view of the Bible and those who consider it myth and fantasy. Might be an interesting thread.

Shalom shabbat,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

No strawman. If the titles could be used interchangeably, as you claim they could be and were, then they are equivalents, however rough.

So, show me where it happens -- where any ancient author attests that it happened or could happen.

Here are two places in Stabo where the titles BASILEUS and TETRARCHS appear in proximity with one another.

Strabo 12.3.1.15; 13.4.3.9. Please show me how they indicate that BASILEUS and TETRARCHS were regarded as interchageable.

What I think about your clam is irrelevant to the matter at hand. It is the truth of your claim that is at issue. This cannot be determined by knowing where I stand on the matter. It can only be determined by evidence from ancient authors that the terms BASILEUS and TETRACHS are interchangeable.

Are you going to produce it or not?

JG

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Notice how Jeffrey doesn't even answer the question about what
position he takes, making his stuff his normal junque.

Putting aside Jeffrey's strawman and semantic games here are
references that simply looks at a Tetrarch as a 'minor king'.

From Roger's site.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/he...s_03_book3.htm
HEGESIPPUS, [Translated by Wade Blocker]
Philippus the tetrarch of the Trachonitidis region
10. Translator's note: tetrarch, a minor king.

Rome, the Greek World, and the East By Fergus Millar
Afterwards Herodes Antipas, the tetrarch
(effectively a minor king) of Galilee,

Even one of the more interesting skeptics sites -
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0480Barabbas.php
At the time of Christ, Galilee was ruled by a Tetrarch,
a Roman title for a minor king. Antipas (4 BC—39 AD)

http://www.incunabulabooks.com/ibrflatt.htm
Incunabula Books Latin Wordlist:
tetrarch (a minor king under Roman protection);

One can quickly see through the games of Jeffrey Gibson, and why
he refuses to give his own position on the matter. The simple fact
of the matter is that Mark calling Herod King is no difficulty whatsoever,
even more especially in the context of the misactions of Antipas and
his court.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

Leaving aside the question of how valuable the material above is as evidence for the matter at hand, please note that instead of any of this corroborating your claim that the ancients used BASILEUS and TETRARCHS interchangably, it stands squarely against it.

What the 19th century editors of "Plutarch's Lives", Whiston, Smith, and your commentator on Cicero are doing not what you think they are doing. Rather they are expressing doubt about what office Deiotartus and Monobazus actually had AND recognizing that these titles were not - and were not thought by anyone in the ancient world to be -- interchangeable.

You have read into this secondary material what you want to see in it.

In any case, where is your primary evidence that any ancient writer one thought that BASILEUS and TETRARCHS were interchangeable titles?

JG

Steven Avery

Jeffrey, you have 'left behind' common sense.

First we have seen that there is no problem in calling Herod Antipas
'king Herod'. Plenty of evidence allows for that even outside the two
Gospel writers and you do not even take the contrary side.

Instead, you want to quibble about the word 'interchangable'
which was used once in the context of the Gospel accounts.

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

And if historians cannot even figure out if various folks were
kings or tetrarchs that is quite an indication that in could be
a "distinction without a (significant) difference".

So we have a simple truth. There is no difficulty in the minor king,
the tetrarch who wanted so hungrily to be a full king, to be called
king Herod by Mark. It is possible, or likely, that this was how he
was known in his court when John was beheaded, about which Mark
reports. Perhaps Mark is being a tad sharp, knowing the family history
of "The King of the Jews". In the context of Mark 6 king Herod
actually makes more sense than 'Herod the tetrarch' and Matthew
has the similar usage in the context of Antipas dark decision to
have the head of John the Baptist. While it is Luke's style to stay
with the precision titles. All fits perfectly.

A fascinating study, so I appreciate the comments in that sense,
in that some study sheds more light on the beautiful and powerful
Gospel accounts.

Shalom,
Steven

jgibson000

But why should I answer this question? How would that in any way be relevant to the question of whether or not you have and can produce any primary evidence for your claim?

All of these, with the exception of Millar, are secondary sources, not primary evidence, and are not definitive in any way. And, notably, you've misquoted Millar.

I point you to first to Liddell and Scott and then to BDAG (and the evidence and literature, primary and secondary, cited there), each of which make's your clam as unsupported and unresarched as it is nonsense.

L&S:
τετραρχης, ου, ὁ, tetrarch, Str.12.5.1, Plu.Ant.56, OGI416 (Cos, i a.d.), 543.3 (Ancyra, ii a.d.), etc.; of rulers under the protection of Rome of lower grade than kings, e.g. in Palestine, Ev.Matt.14.1, al., J.BJ1.12.5, al.; generally, Sall.Cat.20.7, Hor.Sat.1.3.12, etc.: also τ�*τραρχος, Θεσσαλῶν SIG274 (Delph., iv b.c.): gen. -χου OGI606.4 (Syria, i a.d.), but -χα IGRom.4.1683 (Pergam.): cf. τετραρχία.

BDAG:
τετράρχης, ου, ὁ (Tdf., W-H., N. spell it τετραάρχης; on this s. Bl-D. §124; Mlt.-H. 63 al.) tetrarch (Strabo; Joseph.; inscr.: s. the reff. in Schürer I4 423, 12. Also Plut., Anton. 56, 7; 58, 11; Polyaenus 8, 39), orig. ruler of the fourth part of a region (Strabo 12, 5, 1 p. 567); later, when the orig. sense was wholly lost (Appian, Mithrid. 46 §178; 58 §236 there are more than four Galatian tetrarchs), title of a petty dependent prince, whose rank and authority were lower than those of a king. In our lit. Herod Antipas is given this title (as well as in the inscr. Dit., Or. 416, 3; 417, 4; Jos., Ant. 17, 188; 18, 102; 109; 122) Mt l4:1; Lk 3:19; 9:7; Ac 13:1; ISm 1:2.-Schürer I4 423f; BNiese, RhM n.s. 38, 1883, 583ff; EvDobschütz, RE XX ’08, 627f; XXIV ’13, 622. M-M.*

Where did I ever say I refuse to give my position? The question is, why should I give it (and if you really think I haven't been doing so, then you are much thicker than I ever thought), especially since the issue is whether you have any primary evidence for your claim.

The only one refusing anything and playing games around here is you.

The issue isn't what is and is not difficult. It is whether in calling Antipas King, Mark has made a mistake. He has.

You do know, don't you, that Herod Antipas was removed from his office specifically for wanting to be declared BASILIEUS? Certainly Caesar recognized a clear distinction between, and the non interchangeability of, the titles BASILEUS and TETRARCHS.

JG

jgibson000

And what specifically is this evidence? Please provide it.

JG

Steven Avery

Kewl. You finally stated your position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 Caesar recognized a clear distinction between, and the non interchangeability of, the titles BASILEUS and TETRARCHS.

True, and rather irrelevant to the discussion since the emphasis is on what occurs in Galilee and in the court of Herod Antipas.

However some prefer to render unto Caesar.

Shalom,
Steven Avery