The tetrarchies in Luke 3.1-2.

[Charles Wilson]

Thank you, maryhelena. We're gonna figure this out yet (Nice Analysis above.).

FWIW, here is where Herod sets up the Herodian Court on Hellenistic Lines - "How'zat woikin' out for yuz?"

Josephus, War..., 1, 23, 5:

"Now when Herod was come to Jerusalem, he gathered the people together, and presented to them his three sons, and gave them an apologetic account of his absence, and thanked God greatly, and thanked Caesar greatly also, for settling his house when it was under disturbances, and had procured concord among his sons, which was of greater consequence than the kingdom itself, -" and which I will render still more firm; for Caesar hath put into my power to dispose of the government, and to appoint my successor. Accordingly, in way of requital for his kindness, and in order to provide for mine own advantage, I do declare that these three sons of mine shall be kings. And, in the first place, I pray for the approbation of God to what I am about; and, in the next place, I desire your approbation also. The age of one of them, and the nobility of the other two, shall procure them the succession. Nay, indeed, my kingdom is so large that it may be sufficient for more kings. Now do you keep those in their places whom Caesar hath joined, and their father hath appointed; and do not you pay undue or unequal respects to them, but to every one according to the prerogative of their births; for he that pays such respects unduly, will thereby not make him that is honored beyond what his age requires so joyful, as he will make him that is dishonored sorrowful. As for the kindred and friends that are to converse with them, I will appoint them to each of them, and will so constitute them, that they may be securities for their concord; as well knowing that the ill tempers of those with whom they converse will produce quarrels and contentions among them; but that if these with whom they converse be of good tempers, they will preserve their natural affections for one another. But still I desire that not these only, but all the captains of my army, have for the present their hopes placed on me alone; for I do not give away my kingdom to these my sons, but give them royal honors only; whereby it will come to pass that they will enjoy the sweet parts of government as rulers themselves, but that the burden of administration will rest upon myself whether I will or not..."

[maryhelena]

JW:
The simple explanation is that in general GMark is the base source for GLuke and regarding Herod:

6

14 King Herod

GLuke knew that GMark contained historical errors and used Josephus, the official Roman historian of 1st century Israel to try and correct them. Per Josephus this Herod was not King Herod but Tetrarch Herod. GLuke then found three other identified and related Tetrarchs in Josephus as best she could to try and present a sense of historical completeness.

So is this it Joe - up with the Red Flag - Mark made an ERROR - nothing to see here folks - move along now......

Error upon error - might as well pack up and head for home.....

I have sought to demonstrate, in the above posts, that Luke has not picked the name of Lysanias out of a hat. Lysanias and his father Ptolemy have some relevance to Hasmonean history. Particularly to the last Hasmonean King and High Priest. Since the story Luke is writing deals with Pilate, a Roman official under Tiberius, being involved with the execution of a Jewish man ( "This is the King of the Jews.") - the correspondence with Marc Antony, under Caesar Augustus, executing a Jewish King is relevant. The dating of Lysanias also closely corresponding to the dating for Antigonus.

As for GMark and 'King Herod' - out of place if one wants to be technical re Antipas being a tetrarch. So, again, perhaps this gospel writer is, like the later Lukan writer, wanting to reflect an earlier period of history than the time of Pilate. Josephus tells us that two sons of the Jewish King Aristobulus II, were beheaded, Alexander probably in 47 b.c. and Antigonus via Herod in 37 b.c.

Greg Doudna has suggested that Josephus, with his John the baptizer story, has dislocated a story about Hyrcanus II. Josephus sets the death of his John the baptizer figure within a context of Herod (Antipas) war with Aretas - Tiberius dying shortly before Roman armies travelled to Petra. Rather than a dislocation perhaps Josephus is simply reflecting upon past Hasmonean history. As Luke has done with Lysanias and Mark with King Herod. The end of Pilate's rule in Judea in 37 c.e. being 100 years from 63 b.c. - when Rome removed Aristobulus and reinstated Hyrcanus as High Priest.

''But Herod, when he heard thereof, said, John, whom I beheaded, he is risen.'' Mark 6.16.

GMark's gospel story about the beheading of John the Baptist is reflecting earlier Hasmonean history. Perhaps the John the Baptist figure, a literary creation within the gospel story, reflects not simply Hyrcanus but the Hasmoneons of which he was a part. It was Hasmoneon rulership in Judea that was beheaded. As GLuke puts it - the John the Baptist figure is aware that one who is mightier comes after him.

''John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose:'' (Luke 3.16)

Viewed from a Hasmonean perspective - Hasmonean history is relevant to the creation of the gospel story. It is that history, that root, from which the branches of Christianity grew.

As to the Herod/tetrarch and Herodias marriage - reflections again of King Herod taking a Hasmonean wife - as the tetrarch Antipas is deemed to have done with Herodias - the granddaughter of the Hasmoneon princess Mariamne who King Herod took as wife.

(a common argument re the Josephan dating of John the baptizer is that Josephus is having a flash-back - i.e. the Josephan dating does not suit the consensus dating for the gospel crucifixion story around 30-33 c.e. Nikos Kokkinos has countered this by moving the crucifixion to near the end of Pilate's rule in Judea, thus utilizing the Josephan dating. )

"Is Josephus's John the Baptist Passage a Chronologically Dislocated Story of the Death of Hyrcanus II?"
https://www.academia.edu/43060817/_Is_J ... yrcanus_II_

Rather than putting up ERROR signs when something looks to be out of context - dig - dig deeper....there might yet be historical diamonds to discover....