Ituraea

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

ITURaeA. —This term is used in  Luke 3:1 among other designations of political and geographical districts, the identification of whose rulers is intended to give a fixed chronological starting-point for the ministry of John the Baptist. It does not occur as a substantive in any pre-Christian writer. Neither does it occur again in post-Christian literature until the days of Eusebius, and doubtfully then. The term ‘Ituraeans,’ however, as the name of a people, is frequently mentioned. The first mention among Greek writers of the Ituraeans is that of Eupolemus (b.c. 150) as quoted by Eusebius ( Prœp. Evan . ix. 30). Cicero ( Philip . ii. 112) speaks of them as a predatory people, and Caesar ( Bell. Afr . 20) calls them skilful archers (cf. Josephus Ant . xiii. xi. 3 [Dindorf reads Ἰτουραίαν; but it is commonly agreed that this is incorrect, and Naber’s and Niese’s reading, Ἰτουραίων, is preferred]; Strabo xvi. ii. 10, 18, 20; Dio Cass. xlix. 32. 5; Appian, Civ . v. 7; also Virgil, Georg . ii. 448; Lucan, Pharsal . vii. 230, 514).

The most important fact brought into view by the history of the Ituraeans, so far as the understanding of  Luke 3:1 is concerned, is their migratory character. They first appear as the sons of Jetur ( Genesis 25:15,  1 Chronicles 1:31), a branch of the race of Ishmael (cf. artt. ‘Jetur’ and ‘Ishmael’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible). Their original home was the territory to the S.E. of Palestine. In the course of their wanderings they drifted northward, and some time before the Exile reached the country adjacent to Israel, east of the Jordan. Late in the 2nd cent. b.c., Aristobulus I. conquered certain bands of non-Israelites who had settled in Galilee, and compelled them either to submit to circumcision or leave the country. It has been conjectured that among these there were some Ituraeans, who moved still farther north. At any rate, in the next generation the Ituraeans are definitely located in the region of Lebanon. Strabo (xvi. ii. 10) speaks of them as inhabiting the ‘mountain country’ which with Chalcis and Marsyas was ruled by Ptolemy the son of Mennaeus (b.c. 85–40). He further describes them in association with the Arabs as ‘all lawless men dwelling in the mountain region of the Libanus and anti-Libanus territory,’ and harassing the agricultural population of the adjacent plain. D. aemilius Secundus, a millitary commander under Quirinius, reports that in a campaign against the Ituraeans in the Lebanon range, he had stormed a fortress of theirs (Mommsen, Ephemeris Epigr . iv. 1881, p. 538). With the death of Ptolemy, the government of this entire region passed into the hands of his son Lysanias, whom accordingly Dio Cassius calls ‘king of the Ituraeans’ (xlix. 32). Lysanias was put to death by Mark Antony in b.c. 34, and a little over ten years later (b.c. 23) this territory came, by way of a lease, under the control of a chief named Zenodorus (Josephus Ant . xv. x. 1; Bj i. xx. 4); but in b.c. 20, upon the death of Zenodorus, Augustus gave a portion of it to Herod the Great; and when Herod’s kingdom was broken up among his heirs into tetrarchies, it fell to the lot of Philip to possess it (Josephus Ant . xv. x. 3; Bj ii. vi. 3). Subsequently to the mention of Ituraea by St. Luke, the emperor Caligula bestowed it upon a certain Soemus (a.d. 38), entitled by Tacitus ( Ann . xii. 23) and Dio Cassius (lix. 12) ‘king of the Ituraeans.’ From a.d. 49, the date of the death of Soemus, and onwards, the country appears as a part of the province of Syria, furnishing a quota of soldiers for the Roman army ( Ephem. Epigr. 1884, p. 194).

The mention of Ituraea by St. Luke raises the following questions: (1) Did he use the term as a noun or as an adjective? This is partly a question of correct Greek usage. A noun ‘Ituraea’ would be a linguistic anachronism at the time of St. Luke. It is unknown until the 4th cent.; but that the Evangelist fell into the error of using it as such is maintained by Schürer and H. Holtzmann, while Ramsay ( Expos ., Feb. 1894, p. 144 ff., Apr. p. 288 ff.), contends against this position.* [Note: The importance of this conclusion by Professor Ramsay, apart from the purely academic vindication of St. Luke as a master of good Greek, is that it establishes an analogy for the South-Galatian theory so strenuously advocated by himself.]

(2) Out of this linguistic question grows the historical one: Did St. Luke speak accurately when he enumerated the Ituraean country as a part of the tetrarchy of Philip? For even if the Evangelist did use the word ‘Ituraea’ as an adjective, it does not follow that he has correctly located the country. H. Holtzmann ( Hand-Com . ‘Syn. Gosp.’ p. 58) calls it an error that Ituraea should be included with Trachonitis in Philip’s tetrarchy, and explains that St. Luke probably had in mind a later arrangement of the territory under Agrippa. As a matter of fact, Josephus describes the tetrarchy of Philip as consisting of ‘Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and certain parts of the house of Zeno (Zenodorus) about Paneas yielding a revenue of one hundred talents’ ( Ant . xvii. xi. 4; Bj ii. vi. 3). Ituraea is not given in this description. But it does not seem probable that St. Luke, who is writing with so much regard for historical details, should have failed at this point. Hence efforts have been made to account for his statement as it stands. Of these it is easy to set aside as futile ( a ) the identification of Ituraea with Jedur (a region S.W. of Damascus), as etymologically unsound, and as not corresponding geographically to the descriptions given by Strabo. According to these, the Ituraeans lived in a mountainous region. ( b ) Cheyne (art. ‘Ituraea’ in Encyc. Bibl .) proposes an interesting emendation of the text of Luke. Instead of Ἰτουραίας he would read Αὐρανίτιδος. But in order to get this substitution he assumes that by a transcriptional error ἱδ was dropped from Αὐρανίτιδος, and the remainder of the word, thus left in confusion, was by another transcriptional manipulation converted into Ἰτουραίας. Evidently this is too elaborate and too purely conjectural a proceeding to be accepted. ( c ) Statements of Eusebius ( Os 2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] p. 268, Ἰτουραία ἡ καὶ Τραχωνῖτις, and p. 298, Τραχωνῖτις χώρα ἡ καὶ Ἰτουραία; cf. also Jerome’s translation of the same, ‘Trachonitis regio sive Ituraea,’ Lib. de Situ , etc., p. 238) definitely identify Ituraea and Trachonitis, and have been accepted as satisfactorily removing the difficulty. The terms ‘Trachonitis’ and ‘Ituraea’ do not, however, seem to be used by the Evangelist with the exact equivalency that the phraseology of Eusebius suggests. Hence ( d ) it is best not to identify Ituraea with Trachonitis as a whole, but to assume a certain overlapping of the two, giving a fairly painstaking writer good ground for connecting them together in the attempt to present the situation broadly. This conclusion is supported by the constantly changing character of the territory occupied by the Ituraeans, as exhibited in the sketch of their history above given, as well as the repeated shifting of the boundary lines in this general region during the centuries before and after Christ.

Literature.—Münter, de Rebus Ituraeorum , 1824; Schurer, Gj V [Note: Jv Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] i. 707ff. [ Hj P [Note: Jp History of the Jewish People.] i. ii. App. i.]; Krenkel, Josephus u. Lukas , 1894, pp. 90–95; G. A. Smith, art. ‘Ituraea’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, and Expos . March 1894, pp. 231–238; Ramsay, Expos . Jan. 1894, p. 43 ff., Feb. p. 144 ff., Apr. p. 288ff.

A. C. Zenos.

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

Iturã†A [the name is probably derived from Jetur , who is mentioned in   Genesis 25:15 and   1 Chronicles 1:31 as a son of Ishmael], with Trachonitis, constituted the tetrarchy of Philip (  Luke 3:1 ). But whether ‘Ituræa’ is employed by the Evangelist as a noun or an adjective is a disputed point. Ramsay contends ( Expositor , Jan., Feb., Apr., 1894) that no Greek writer prior to Eusebius in the 4th cent. a.d. ever uses it as the name of a country. The Ituræans as a people were well known to classical writers. According to Cicero ( Philipp . ii. 112), they were a ‘predatory people’; according to Cæsar ( Bell. Afr . 20), they were ‘skilful archers’; according to Strabo (xvi. ii. 10 etc.), they were ‘lawless.’ They seem to have migrated originally from the desert to the vicinity of Southern Lebanon and CÅ“le-Syria. Both Strabo and Josephus ( Ant . Xiii. xi. 3) locate them in these parts. The Romans probably caused them to retreat towards the desert again shortly before the Christian era. Lysanias the son of Ptolemy is called by Dio Cassius (xlix. 32) ‘king of the Ituræans.’ He was put to death by Mark Antony in b.c. 34. Zenodorus his successor died in b.c. 20, whereupon a part of his territory fell into the hands of Herod the Great; and when Herod’s kingdom was divided, it became the possession of Philip (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant . Xv. x. 3). Whether Ituræa and Trachonitis overlapped (as Ramsay thinks), or were two distinct districts (as Strabo), is uncertain; G. A. Smith in his art. ‘Ituræa’ in Hastings’ Db [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] is non-committal. The passage in Luke seems to favour a distinct and definite district, which was probably somewhere N.E. of the Sea of Galilee.

George L. Robinson.

Fausset's Bible Dictionary

The region N. of Palestine. With Trachonitis Ituraea formed the tetrarchy of Philip ( Luke 3:1). Stretching from mount Hermon toward the N.E., i.e. toward Hauran, and from Damascus to northern Bashan. Called from Jetur, Ishmael's son ( Genesis 25:15-16). The tribe of Manasseh wrested it from the Hagrites (Ishmaelites), Jetur, Nephish, and Nodab, and "increased from Bashan unto Baal Hermon and Senir, and unto mount Hermon"; i.e., they added Ituraea to Bashan, Gaulonitis, and Trachonitis, which they already possessed ( 1 Chronicles 5:19;  1 Chronicles 5:23). Rome gave Ituraea to Herod the Great, 20 B.C., who bequeathed it to his son Philip. Now Jedur, with 38 towns and villages, of which ten are desolate and the rest very poor. Trachonitis was on its E., Gaulonitis on its S., Hermon on its W., and the Damascus plain on its N. An undulating table land with conical hills; the southern portion watered by streams from Hermon; the N. covered with jagged rocks of basalt seamed by chasms or sunk into pits, the molten lava having become fissured in cooling.

Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary

so called from Itur, or Jetur, one of the sons of Ishmael, who settled in it, but whose posterity were either driven out or subdued by the Amorites; when it is supposed to have formed a part of the kingdom of Bashan, and subsequently of the half tribe of Manasseh east of Jordan; but as it was situated beyond the southern spur of Mount Hermon, called the Djebel Heish, this is doubtful. It lay on the north-eastern side of the land of Israel, between it and the territory of Damascus, or Syria; and is supposed to have been the same country at present known by the name of Dje-dour, on the east of the Djebel Heish, between Damascus and the lake of Tiberias. The Ituraeans being subdued by Aristobulus, the high priest and governor of the Jews, B.C. 106, were forced by him to embrace the Jewish religion; and were at the same time incorporated into the state. Philip, one of the sons of Herod the Great, was tetrarch, or governor, of this country when John the Baptist commenced his ministry.

Smith's Bible Dictionary

Iturae'a. (land of Jether). A small province on the northwestern border of Palestine, lying along the base of Mount Hermon, only mentioned in  Luke 3:1. Jetur, the son of Ishmael, gave his name, like the rest of his brethren, to the little province he colonized.  Genesis 25:15-16.

It adjoined Trachonitis, and lay along the base of Libanus between Tiberias and Damascus. At the place indicated is situated the modern province of Jedur , which is the Arabic form of the Hebrew Jetur .

Morrish Bible Dictionary

A province on the east of the upper Jordan of which Herod Philip was made tetrarch.  Luke 3:1 . Its boundaries cannot be well defined, but it reached toward Damascus and embraced the southern slopes of Anti-Lebanon. Its name is derived from Jetur, son of Ishmael.  Genesis 25:15 .

Hawker's Poor Man's Concordance And Dictionary

A province of Syria. (See  Luke 3:1) The meaning is, what is guarded; from Thur, to keep.

Holman Bible Dictionary

 Luke 3:1 Genesis 25:15

Easton's Bible Dictionary

 Luke 3:1

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

it - ū̇ - rē´a ( Ἰτουραία , Itouraı́a ):

1. The Word an Adjective

The term occurs only once in Scripture, in the definition of Philip's territory: tḗs Itouraı́as kai Trachonı́tidos chō̇ras , which the King James Version renders: "of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis," and Revised Version: "the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis" (  Luke 3:1 ). Sir W.M. Ramsay has given reasons for the belief that this word was certainly never used as a noun by any writer before the time of Eusebius ( Expos , 1894, Ix, 51ff, 143ff, 288ff). It must be taken as an adjective indicating the country occupied by the Itureans.

2. The Itureans

The descent of the Itureans must probably be traced to Jetur, son of Ishmael ( Genesis 25:15 ), whose progeny were clearly numbered among the Arabian nomads. According to Eupolemus (circa 150 bc), quoted by Eusebius ( Praep. Evang . Ix, 30), they were associated with the Nabateans, Moabites and Ammonites against whom David warred on the east of the Jordan. They are often mentioned by Latin writers; their skill in archery seems greatly to have impressed the Romans. They were skillful archers (Caesar, Bell. Afr . 20); a lawless (Strabo, xvi.2, 10) and predatory people (Cicero, Philipp . ii.112). In the Latin inscriptions Iturean soldiers have Syrian names ( Hjp , I, ii, 326). They would therefore be the most northerly of the confederates opposed to David ( supra ), and their country may naturally be sought in the neighborhood of Mt. Hermon.

3. Indications of Their Territory

There is nothing to show when they moved from the desert to this district. Aristobulus made war against the Itureans, compelled many of them to be circumcised, and added a great part of their territory to Judea, 140 bc ( Ant. , Xiii , xi, 3). Dio Cassius calls Lysanias "king of the Itureans" (xlix.32), and from him Zenodorus leased land which included Ulatha and Paneas, 25 bc. The capital of Lysanias was Chalcis, and he ruled over the land from Damascus to the sea. Josephus speaks of Soemus as a tetrarch in Lebanon ( Vita , 11); while Tacitus calls him governor of the Itureans ( Ann . xii.23). The country of Zenodorus, lying between Trachonitis and Galilee, and including Paneas and Ulatha, Augustus bestowed on Herod, 20 bc ( Ant. , Xv, x, 3). In defining the tetrarchy of Philip, Josephus names Batanea, Trachonitis and Auranitis, but says nothing of the Itureans ( Ant. , Xvii , xi, 4; Bj , Ii, vi, 3). Paneas and Ulatha were doubtless included, and this may have been Iturean territory ( Hjp , I, ii, 333). It seems probable, therefore, that the Itureans dwelt mainly in the mountains, and in the broad valley of Coele-Syria; but they may also have occupied the district to the Southeast of Hermon, the modern Jēdūr . It is not possible to define more closely the Iturean country; indeed it is not clear whether Luke intended to indicate two separate parts of the dominion of Philip, or used names which to some extent overlapped.

It has been suggested that the name Jēdūr may be derived from the Hebrew יטוּר , yeṭūr , and so be equivalent to Ituraea. But the derivation is impossible.

Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature

Ituræ´a, a district in the north-east of Palestine, forming the tetrarchy of Philip. The name is supposed to have originated with Itur, or Jetur, one of Ishmael's sons . In this name is given as that of a tribe or nation with which Reuben (beyond the Jordan) warred; and from its being joined with the names of other of Ishmael's sons it is evident that a tribe descended from his son Jetur is intimated.

During the Exile this and other border countries were taken possession of by various tribes, whom, although they are called after the original names, as occupants of the countries which had received those names, we are not bound to regard as descendants of the original possessors. These new Ituræans were eventually subdued by King Aristobulus (B.C. 100); by whom they were constrained to embrace the Jewish religion, and were at the same time incorporated with the state. Nevertheless the Ituræans were still recognizable as a distinct people in the time of Pliny. As already intimated, Herod the Great, in dividing his dominions among his sons, bequeathed Ituræa to Philip as part of a tetrarchy composed, according to Luke, of Trachonitis and Ituræa. The name is so loosely applied by ancient writers, that it is difficult to fix its boundaries with precision. Perhaps it may suffice for general purposes to describe it as a district of indeterminate extent, traversed by a line drawn from the Lake of Tiberias to Damascus. The present Jedur probably comprehends the whole or greater part of the proper Ituraea. This is described by Burckhardt as 'lying south of Jebelkessoue, east of Jebel es-Sheik (Mount Hermon), and west of the Hadj road.' He adds, that it now contains only twenty inhabited villages. By the help of these lights we may discover that Ituræa was a plain country, about thirty miles long from north to south, and twenty-four from east to west, having on the north Abilene and the Damascene district; on the south Auranitis and part of Bashan; on the east the stony region of Trachonitis; and on the west the hill country of Bashan.