JoeWallack

JW:
Ookay, the lingering (festering?) question here is whether an ancient author using BASILEUS (King) to describe a Tetrarch should be considered an error in usage. Once again I present BDAG (it's my BDAG baby) to get things started (a second timuh):

"βασιλεύς, �*ως, ὁ (Hom. +; loanw. in rabb.)

�* one who rules as possessor of the highest office in a political realm, king, gener. of a male ruler who has unquestioned authority (exceptions are client rulers who owe their power to the grace of Rome) in a specific area ποιεῖν τινα β. make someone king J 6:15. βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς earthly kings Mt 17:25; Rv. 1:5; 6:15 (Ps 2:2; 88:28) al.; Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2); β. τῶν ἐθνῶν Lk 22:25; (w. ἡγεμόνες; cp. ἡγούμενοι ἐθνῶν καὶ β. Orig., C. Cels. 2, 32, 22) Mt 10:18; Mk 13:9; Lk 21:12. Of kings gener. (w. προφῆται; 2 Macc 2:13; Boll 139) Lk 10:24. Of Pharaoh Ac 7:10 (Tat. 38, 1); David Mt 1:6; Ac 13:22 (Just., A I, 35, 6); Herod I (Jos., Ant. 14, 382; 385; OGI 414, 2; 415, 1; 416, 2; 417, 3; Just., A I, 40, 6; D. 78, 1]) Mt 2:1, 3; Lk 1:5; Herod Antipas (not really a king [Jos., Ant. 17, 188; OGI 414, 2; 415, 1; 416, 2; 417, 3], but occasionally given that title: Cicero, Verr. 4, 27) Mt 14:9; Mk 6:14; GPt 1:2 (ASyn. 341, 20); Herod Agrippa I (Jos., Ant. 18, 237; 19, 274; OGI 418, 1; 419, 1; 428, 4) Ac 12:1; Agrippa II (Jos., Bell. 2, 223; OGI 419, 2; 423, 1; 425, 3; 426, 2) 25:13, 24, 26; Aretas, king of the Nabataeans 2 Cor 11:32; Melchizedek, king of Salem Hb 7:1f (Gen 14:18). Of the Rom. emperor (Appian, Iber. 102 §444, Bell. Civ. 2, 86 §362 Ῥωμαίων β. Ἁδριανός al.; Herodian 2, 4, 4; IG III, 12, 18; CIG II, 2721, 11; POxy 33 II, 6; 35 verso, 1; BGU 588, 10; PGM 4, 2448 Ἁδριανὸς β.; 2452; Jos., Bell. 3, 351; 4, 596; 5, 563, Vi. 34; Magie 62; βασιλεῦ Ar. 1, 1 al. Tat. 4, 1; 19, 1; Mel., HE 4, 26, 6) 1 Ti 2:2 (the pl. is generic as Appian, Prooem. 15 §62; Jos., Ant. 2, 71; PEg2 48; on the topic s. LBiehl, D. liturg. Gebet für Kaiser u. Reich ’37); 1 Pt 2:13, 17 (s. Pr 24:21 and esp. Vi. Aesopi I c. 26 p. 288, 17 Eberh.: τ�*κνον, πρὸ πάντων σ�*βου τὸ θεῖον, τὸν βασιλ�*α δὲ τίμα); Rv 17:9; 1 Cl 37:3."

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) . University of Chicago Press: Chicago


JW:
Note the potential evidence for using BASILEUS (King) to describe a Tetrarch here:

"Herod Antipas (not really a king [Jos., Ant. 17, 188; OGI 414, 2; 415, 1; 416, 2; 417, 3], but occasionally given that title: Cicero, Verr. 4, 27) Mt 14:9; Mk 6:14; GPt 1:2 (ASyn. 341, 20)"

JW:
I think we would all agree that per Josephus Herod Antipas was a Tetrarch and not a King (emphasis mine):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...hus/ant-18.htm

"CHAPTER 2.

NOW HEROD AND PHILIP BUILT SEVERAL CITIES IN HONOR OF CAESAR. CONCERNING THE SUCCESSION OF PRIESTS AND PROCURATORS; AS ALSO WHAT BEFELL PHRAATES AND THE PARTHIANS.

1. WHEN Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high priest; while Herod and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy, and settled the affairs thereof. Herod also built a wall about Sepphoris, (which is the security of all Galilee,) and made it the metropolis of the country. He also built a wall round Betharamphtha, which was itself a city also, and called it Julias, from the name of the emperor's wife. When Philip also had built Paneas, a city at the fountains of Jordan, he named it Cesarea. He also advanced the village Bethsaids, situate at the lake of Gennesareth, unto the dignity of a city, both by the number of inhabitants it contained, and its other grandeur, and called it by the name of Julias, the same name with Caesar's daughter.

2. As Coponius, who we told you was sent along with Cyrenius, was exercising his office of procurator, and governing Judea, the following accidents happened. As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover, it was customary for the priests to open the temple-gates just after midnight. When, therefore, those gates were first opened, some of the Samaritans came privately into Jerusalem, and threw about dead men's bodies, in the cloisters; on which account the Jews afterward excluded them out of the temple, which they had not used to do at such festivals; and on other accounts also they watched the temple more carefully than they had formerly done. A little after which accident Coponius returned to Rome, and Marcus Ambivius came to be his successor in that government; under whom Salome, the sister of king Herod, died, and left to Julia, [Caesar's wife,] Jamnia, all its toparchy, and Phasaelis in the plain, and Arehelais, where is a great plantation of palm trees, and their fruit is excellent in its kind. After him came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, the duration of whose reign was fifty-seven years, besides six months and two days (of which time Antonius ruled together with him fourteen years; but the duration of his life was seventy-seven years); upon whose death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.

3. And now Herod the tetrarch, who was in great favor with Tiberius, built a city of the same name with him, and called it Tiberias."


JW:
BDAG's first reference of potential support for using BASILEUS (King) to describe a Tetrarch is:

"Cicero, Verr. 4, 27"

Stephen Carlson has pointed out that Cicero died before Herod Antipas was born. Thanks Stephen. But even though BDAG's wording is awkward, their reference is only meant as General support for using "King" to refer to non-Kings and is not intended to be a specific reference to Herod Antipas.

Here is the Cicero reference (emphasis mine):

http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/HTM...043-1_head_018

"XXVII. I come now, not to a theft, not to avarice, not to covetousness, but to an action of that sort that every kind of wickedness seems to be contained in it, and to be in it; by which the immortal gods were insulted, the reputation and authority of the name of the Roman people was impaired, hospitality was betrayed and plundered, all the kings who were most friendly to us, and the nations which are under their rule and dominion, were alienated from us by his wickedness. For you know that the kings of Syria, the boyish sons of King Antiochus, have lately been at Rome. And they came not on account of the kingdom of Syria; for that they had obtained possession of without dispute, as they had received it from their father and their ancestors; but they thought that the kingdom of Egypt belonged to them and to Selene their mother. When they, being hindered by the critical state of the republic at that time, were not able to obtain the discussion of the subject as they wished before the senate, they departed for Syria, their paternal kingdom. One of them—the one whose name is Antiochus—wished to make his journey through Sicily. And so, while Verres was prætor, he came to Syracuse. On this Verres thought that an inheritance had come to him, because a man whom he had heard, and on other accounts suspected had many splendid things with him, had come into his kingdom and into his power. He sends him presents—liberal enough—for all domestic uses; as much wine and oil as he thought fit; and as much wheat as he could want, out of his tenths. After that he invites the king himself to supper. He decorates a couch abundantly and magnificently. He sets out the numerous and beautiful silver vessels, in which he was so rich; for he had not yet made all those golden ones. He takes care that the banquet shall be splendidly appointed and provided in every particular. Why need I make a long story of it? The king departed thinking that Verres was superbly provided with everything, and that he himself had been magnificently treated. After that, he himself invites the prætor to supper. He displays all his treasures; much silver, also not a few goblets of gold, which, as is the custom of kings, and especially in Syria, were studded all over with most splendid jewels. There was also a vessel for wine, a ladle hollowed out of one single large precious stone, with a golden handle, concerning which, I think, you heard Quintus Minutius speak, a sufficiently capable judge, and sufficiently credible witness. Verres took each separate piece of plate into his hands, praised it—admired it. The king was delighted that that banquet was tolerably pleasant and agreeable to a prætor of the Roman people. After the banquet was over, Verres thought of nothing else, as the facts themselves showed, than how he might plunder and strip the king of everything before he departed from the province. He sends to ask for the most exquisite of the vessels which he had seen at Antiochus’s lodgings. He said that he wished to show them to his engravers. The king, who did not know the man, most willingly sent them, without any suspicion of his intention. He sends also to borrow the jewelled ladle. He said that he wished to examine it more attentively; that also is sent to him."


JW:
Let me say that I sometimes find the Christian Lexicon BDAG biased towards Christian Assertians. As I think Cicero wrote only in Latin, using this as evidence for the proper usage of a Greek word reminds me too much of that pesky French castle in England from Monty Python & The Holy Grail. On the other hand I have Faith that Steven will take the above as conclusive proof that there is no error of usage in the Christian Bible.

Jeffrey previously indicated that he did not see REX (King) here. Well here's another chance for you Jeffrey. I think it best if I leave the Latin analysis here to you and I'm sure you would agree.



Joseph

LANGUAGE, n.
The music with which we charm the serpents guarding another's treasure.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Amaleq13

Once again, your reading comprehension of English is called into question. Ben didn't ask for a review, he asked about your knowledge of evidence supporting your position. Rather than acknowledge that your position is founded on your faith rather than personal knowledge of the specific supporting evidence Ben requested, you have chosen to babble.

I think Ben was operating under the assumption that your firm assertion indicated you had already completed the necessary work to support it with something other than your personal preferences. I'm sure he appreciates the fact that you have disabused him of that misconception.

FYI, if you had posted this insult against anyone else, you would have been edited. I prefer to let it stand since it only serves to expose your true character.

With regard to your assertion, however, it is clear that you continue to blame your faulty comprehension skills on others.

JoeWallack

JW:
Another consideration regarding whether an ancient author using BASILEUS (King) to describe a Tetrarch should be considered an error in usage is Literary Presentation.

Matthew 14 (emphasis mine):

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_14

"1 At that season Herod the tetrarch heard the report concerning Jesus,

2 and said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore do these powers work in him.

3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip`s wife.

4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.

5 And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet.

6 But when Herod`s birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced in the midst, and pleased Herod.

7 Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she should ask.

8 And she, being put forward by her mother, saith, Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.

9 And the king was grieved; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat with him, he commanded it to be given;"


JW:
As has been demonstrated Ad Nazorean in this Thread, Herod Antipas was technically a Tetrarch and not a King which was a very important distinction at the time. Certainly if "error" is defined here as anything less than the most accurate usage, than "Matthew's" use of "King" at 14:9 is an error. On the other hand, if definition of error is relaxed to requiring an unacceptable usage than I think "Matthew's" literary presentation of the word provides some defense against error:

1) "Matthew" introduces the character as Herod the Tetrarch. A Reader would than presumably know that even though "Matthew" later uses the reference "King", the character was technically a Tetrarch.

2) "Matthew's" "King" reference is by itself (without "Herod"). This is because this was the presentation here of "Matthew's" source ("Mark"). As "King" was a far more common word than "Tetrarch" it may have sounded awkward to use here by itself in "Matthew's" opinion.

3) Combined with 1) & 2) "Matthew" is generally reluctant to change his source unless he has decent reason to.

The error of title usage here is potentially mainly "Mark's". If you use a criteria of historical accuracy than "Mark" is clearly in error by presenting Herod Antipas, a Tetrarch, as a King. The much larger contextual error is that "Mark" places John the Baptizer's operations in Judea while the clear implication from Josephus is that John the Baptizer operated in Galilee (Herod Antipas' territory).

If you use a criteria for "Mark" though of Theological Presentation than from a Literary standpoint the story is better if Jesus is dealing with Kings (rather than Tetrarchs).

WARNING FROM THE SKEPTICAL GENERAL:
The Skeptical General has determined that the above analysis is souly in English and therefore may not consider relevant information based on the underlying Greek. Skeptics are advised that use of the above as a definitive analysis contains dangerous amounts of tarivial and nitpicotine and could be hazardous to your mental health. Women who are pregnant from men, spirits or some combination should seriously consider the Greek.



Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

However you have never addressed the substantive issues. Which I have discussed in some depth in a number of posts.

There is a straightforward and clear indication in the text that Luke and Acts are the same author. And this is accepted by many scholars. And from my point of view if someone demonstrated that as wrong I would have no interest in the discussions of historicity since at least one of the writings would be a fraud. You are welcome to try to make such a demonstration.

And we saw that spin did not even indicate anything about this Acts exclusion technique for three weeks after the Acts historicity verses were posted. Only when pressed did he give us his Acts authorship 'out'.

We see that he and you, a 'moderator', support the insipid claim that I am supposed to prove (to your satisfaction ?) or at least to divert to some potentially unending thread, that Acts was written by Luke before spin will discuss the amazing Acts historicity verses.

Meanwhile spin makes his claims (e.g that Luke only refers to tetrarchs) simply assuming his own (previously unstated) position. With no moderator notice of the improper usage of his own private assumption.

And then, to make it worse, spin denies that he really has any position at all. So on what basis can he claim that Luke doesn't have all the excellent precision Acts references ?

<Edit>

Shalom,
Steven

Amaleq13

They are not relevant to your misinterpretation of spin's statement. He clearly did not write what you said he wrote. Your fault, not his. Again.

Your misinterpretations continue. That has never been my claim. I have simply pointed out (as a member and not as a moderator), that you had misinterpreted his post as saying something it did not. Apparently the distinction between your interpretation and what was actually said continues to elude you.

gregor

One more bump for Prax to argue how other 1st century authors used the terms interchangeably. You can't abandon this to JW - show your work derived before making the posts.

spin

No, praxeus can't abandon this idiocy so lightly. Let's see those 1st c. authors who flock to support interchangeability.


spin

Casper

I just want to thank everyone for contributing. I still return to this post often for background and am bumping it for the newbs. Great stuff!