I think this is a quibble.
When ruling powers were looking for creative ways of ruling over small groups of tightly knit foreigners, for example, the Jewish community, they would frequently choose an Ethnarch:
Ethnarch | Define
noun. the ruler of a people or province, as in parts of the Roman and Byzantine Empires. ethnarchy, noun. Word Origin. C17: from Greek ethnarkhēs, from ethnos nation + arkhein to rule.
Ethnarch, pronounced /ˈɛθnɑːrk/, the anglicized form of ethnarches (Greek: ἐθνάρχης), refers generally to political leadership over a common ethnic group or homogeneous kingdom. … Strong’s Concordance gives the definition of ‘ethnarch’ as “the governor (not king) of a district.”
An Ethnarch could be picked for any number of reasons:
- wealth;
- wisdom;
- political influence;
An unlikely disqualification for such a position would be if the Ethnarch was like, some tribal chieftains, related by well traced kinship lineages to most of the population.
Judah, one of the 12 sons of Israel, was the geneaological head of the tribe of Judah. But he didn’t live forever. So, after a handful of generations, there would be a chief of Judah who was not the common ancestor of everyone in the tribe - - only that he was a descendant (like all of Judah was supposed to be) of Judah. This chief would “represent” the personage of Judah.
@Swamidass, sometimes you work too hard to create distinctions that will just get in your way later.