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
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

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.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

Post by Ken Olson »

That's certainly plausible, Ben, but I wonder how you could provide more evidence for that, or if the evidence is exhausted at that point. Perhaps providing examples other writers that use the term Tetrarch as one of a set four rulers. Any examples of that in Greek (naturally) would help, but examples close to Luke's time would help more (i.e., examples of authors that continued to use the word that way after the word had taken on the meaning of a ruler who wan't quite a king, regardless of whether he was one of a set of four).

Best,

Ken
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

Post by Secret Alias »

Could be part of an understanding that the "word of God" i.e. the gospel was meant to in four parts.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

Post by hakeem »

The claim in gLuke that Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene comes straight out the writings of Josephus which again is evidence gLuke was written no earlier than c 94 CE.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.7.1
1. SO Claudius sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to take care of the affairs of Judea; and when he had already completed the twelfth year of his reign, he bestowed upon Agrippa the tetrarchy of Philip and Batanea, and added thereto Trachonites, with Abila; which last had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias

The claim in gLuke 3.1 that Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene in the time of Pontius Pilate is extremely, extremely significant since it is also claimed the author of gLuke was a companion of Saul/Paul which implies the author of gLuke was supposed to be a contemporary of Lysanias.

However, there is a massive problem --Lysanias was not tetrarch of Abilene in the time of Pontius Pilate but decades earlier.

The author of gLuke, a supposed contemporary of Pontius Pilate, ought to have known that his story about Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene in the time of Pontius Pilate was false.

But the author of gLuke did not know it was false because he did not live in the 1st century or up to at least c 94 CE or up to the writings of Antiquities of the Jews.
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 »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:31 am That's certainly plausible, Ben, but I wonder how you could provide more evidence for that, or if the evidence is exhausted at that point. Perhaps providing examples other writers that use the term Tetrarch as one of a set four rulers. Any examples of that in Greek (naturally) would help, but examples close to Luke's time would help more (i.e., examples of authors that continued to use the word that way after the word had taken on the meaning of a ruler who wan't quite a king, regardless of whether he was one of a set of four).
Well, we have evidence that the original meaning of the word was at least still known:

Strabo, Geography 12.5.1: The Galatians, then, are to the south of the Paphlagonians. And of these there are three tribes; two of them, the Trocmi and the Tolistobogii, are named after their leaders, whereas the third, the Tectosages, is named after the tribe in Celtica. This country was occupied by the Galatae after they had wandered about for a long time, and after they had overrun the country that was subject to the Attalic and the Bithynian kings, until by voluntary cession they received the present Galatia, or Gallo-Graecia, as it is called. Leonnorius is generally reputed to have been the chief leader of their expedition across to Asia. The three tribes spoke the same language and differed from each other in no respect; and each was divided into four portions which were called tetrarchies, each tetrarchy having its own tetrarch [ἕκαστον διελόντες εἰς τέτταρας μερίδας τετραρχίαν ἑκάστην ἐκάλεσαν, τετράρχην ἔχουσαν ἴδιον], and also one judge and one military commander, both subject to the tetrarch, and two subordinate commanders. The Council of the twelve tetrarchs consisted of three hundred men, who assembled at Drynemetum, as it was called. Now the Council passed judgment upon murder cases, but the tetrarchs and the judges upon all others. Such, then, was the organization of Galatia long ago, but in my time the power has passed to three rulers, then to two; and then to one, Deïotarus, and then to Amyntas, who succeeded him. But at the present time the Romans possess both this country and the whole of the country that became subject to Amyntas, having united them into one province.

Of course, Strabo is talking about events from much earlier, but he clearly knows the original definition.

In Antiquities 17.11.4 §317-320, and also in Wars 2.6.3 §93-94, when Caesar changes the disposition of Herod's kingdom, Josephus specifies that Archelaus receives half of the original kingdom, and calls him an ethnarch, while Antipas and Philip each get half of a half and are called tetrarchs. Elsewhere, obviously, Josephus uses the term in a more generic sense (as a ruler of less importance than a king), and maybe I am imagining things, but it comes across as if in this case Josephus is conscious, or perhaps the historical personages themselves are conscious, of the original meaning of the term tetrarch, applying it to the holders of quarters and denying it to the holder of the half (while simultaneously being very specific about their portions in terms of quarters and halves), thus taking advantage of an instance in which the terminology happens to be able to retain its original significance.

In century II, the tactician Aelianus calls four military companies a tetrarchy and their leader a tetrarch (οἱ δὲ τέσσαρες λόχοι τετραρχία, καὶ ὁ τούτου τοῦ τάγματος ἡγούμενος τετράρχης, Aelianus, Tactica 9.2). He seems to be retaining the vocabulary of earlier tacticians, such as Asclepiodotus, and contemporary tacticians such as Arrian (Tactica 10.2, for example) retain it, as well.
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 »

Perhaps interestingly, Ken, I am almost positive that the sleepy thoughts which birthed this idea were under the influence of a recent thread of your own:
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:54 amThis seems to be how Luke took it. I am not, of course, claiming that Luke was unable to understand what Matthew meant, but that he engaged in a bit of creative (or perhaps overly literal) interpretation because he liked the striking image of a tree thrown into the sea and wanted to use it.
The notion of Luke taking something a bit too literally (whether deliberately or not) had been on my mind since reading that thread.
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 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:19 am Perhaps interestingly, Ken, I am almost positive that the sleepy thoughts which birthed this idea were under the influence of a recent thread of your own:
This seems to be how Luke took it. I am not, of course, claiming that Luke was unable to understand what Matthew meant, but that he engaged in a bit of creative (or perhaps overly literal) interpretation because he liked the striking image of a tree thrown into the sea and wanted to use it.
The notion of Luke taking something a bit too literally (whether deliberately or not) had been on my mind since reading that thread.
Oh, this one is interesting!

Theodore of Mopsuestia, fragment of a Commentary on Matthew apud one of the catenae (commenting on Matthew 14.1-12): § Ἕτερος ἦν <Ἡρώδης> ὁ βασιλεύς, ἕτερος δὲ ὁ <τετράρχης> υἱὸς ὢν ἐκείνου· ἐπ' ἐννέα γὰρ τοῖς ἔτεσιν μετὰ τὸν Ἡρώδου θάνατον κατεσχηκότος Ἀρχελάου τὴν ἀρχήν, εἶτα ἀτίμως τῆς βασιλείας ἐκπεσόντος, διεῖλον εἰς τετραρχίας οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι τὴν βασιλείαν ἤτοι οὖν εἰς τέσσαρα μέρη, ὅθεν καὶ τετράρχης ἕκαστος αὐτῶν ὀνομάζεται.

That is exactly the assumption I am positing of Luke, that the Romans divided Herod's kingdom into four parts and named the rulers tetrarchs for that reason.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue May 04, 2021 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

Post by Ken Olson »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:19 am Perhaps interestingly, Ken, I am almost positive that the sleepy thoughts which birthed this idea were under the influence of a recent thread of your own:
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:54 amThis seems to be how Luke took it. I am not, of course, claiming that Luke was unable to understand what Matthew meant, but that he engaged in a bit of creative (or perhaps overly literal) interpretation because he liked the striking image of a tree thrown into the sea and wanted to use it.
The notion of Luke taking something a bit too literally (whether deliberately or not) had been on my mind since reading that thread.
Ooh, I like it. Luke may be over-literalizing something in his source (Matt 14.1) ;)
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 6:55 amThis assumption would explain why we have so many rulers listed, at least one of them not easy to identify. What do you think?
Might they be related to the idea of Paul's "rulers of this age" who crucified Christ? It's a very vague connection, of course.
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 »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:34 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:55 amThis assumption would explain why we have so many rulers listed, at least one of them not easy to identify. What do you think?
Might they be related to the idea of Paul's "rulers of this age" who crucified Christ? It's a very vague connection, of course.
If 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). And, if Philip and Lysanias count in this capacity, then so would a lot of other petty rulers from the region who go unmentioned. At least Tiberius Caesar is symbolically present in Luke 23.2, and of course Pilate and Herod are both involved. I guess it just does not seem like a very tight connection to me, though, overall.

That said, I have missed a trick or two before with the "rulers of this age," so I could very well be missing one now, too.
Post Reply