Layman

As you were apparently unaware of Fitzmyer's work on the issues before us, Luke-Acts, your comment was apparently made in ignorance. In any event, on the issue before us--Luke's accuracy--Fitzmyer has proven himself a sober scholar who does not reach to establish the accuracy of Luke or Acts.


Ah, I see we are dealing with Spin's own personal definition of apologist. The notion that Fitzmyer so unreservedly rejects that which all admitted apologist strive to reconcile is proof enough of the baseleness of your charge.


So you judge any scholar that accepts Mary and Joseph came from Nazareth as an apologist? That's just bizarre.

[quot]Ah, but that's because you've been bitten by the same rabid dog.[/quote]

I see we are going to have problems again keeping this civil.

The point stands. The only evidence you've offered of Fitzmyer being an apologist is that he believes Jesus' family came from Nazareth. Hardly compelling stuff and surely inadequate to justify your attack.

None of which makes Schurer an apologist. Again, saying that he would feel compelled to buttress Luke's accuracy on the offhand reference to Lysanias after he's done dusting off Luke's accuracy on the census is unconvincing.

I'm learning about the subject from real scholoars.

I have your word about the dating of the inscription against everyone elses. So far, I've no reason to accept you as a "real scholar" on anything. Including who is a "real scholar."

Yes. I'm not sure what your point is here. Various sources refer to Ptolemy's realm as the Iturean empire or kingdom.

But there is evidence that Zendorus himself was related to Lysanias. And it's not at all unlikely that another emperor or different circumstances put Lysanias' family back in control of some part of the former empire. Judaea was ruled by prefects or procurators from AD 6 until it was restored to the Herodian family around 39 CE. Another example is King Archelaus and his realm of Cappadocian. He ruled for 50 years until the Tiberius reduced his client kingdom to a province. Yet a few decades later, King Archelaus son was back in control of Cappadocian.


I take it you are unaware of the other inscription at issue.

"Mention is made on a monument, at Heliopolis, of "Zenodorus, son of the tetrarch Lysanias". It has been generally supposed that this is the Zenodorus just mentioned, but it is uncertain whether the first Lysanias was ever called tetrarch. It is proved from the inscriptions that there was a genealogical connection between the families of Lysanias and Zenodorus, and the same name may have been often repeated in the family."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm#VII

Not at all. The reason most of the source I have reviewed attribute the inscription reference to a later Lysanias is the dating. Fewer of them find it significant that Josephus does not use "tetrach" to describe Lysanias the son of Ptolemy--who himself is described as a King. They take this as further evidence that a reference to Lysanias as a "tetrach" implies another Lysanias. But the driving force behind the inscription is its dating between 14 and 29 CE.

There could be some significance to the use of tetrach instead of King, but I haven't studied the use of these terms enough to know yet.

I thought it was more than ten years, but even so, that's more than twice as long as the reign of Lysanias.

I appreciate the geography lesson, but to what end is it offered? The point is that significant chunks of what was the Iturien empire was given away prior to the later references to the kingdeom of Lysanias or the tetrarchy of Lysanias. That these sections were already known as the "house of Zendorus" actually counts against the idea that there was some residual identification of these territories as being the "kingdom of Lysanias."

No, it makes two points. The first is that it would be odd for Josephus to refer in the same place to the "tetrarchy of Philip" which was a recently vacated but still intact realm and the "tetrarchy of Lysanias" merely as a residual reference to only parts of a realm disassembled decades before. The second point is that the "tetrarchy of Lysanias" cannot be a residual reference to the realm ruled by Lysanias because no such realm existed anymore--yet Josephus is speaking of an existing realm so identified.

I'm not sure why this is called an argument from silence. The only reason you've offered for identifying all of Josephus' later references to the kingdom of Lysanias with a man who had died several decades before is that he was so powerful a figure that his name "lingered" on. The evidence for this is not perusasive and the fact that the kingdom would more likely be associated with its founder Ptolemy who ruled more than 50 years or Zendorus who ruled longer than Lysanias and was the last ruler of the intact realm.

This is not an argument from silence. It's very much an argument based on Josephus' terms uses in different places. What silence is at issue here?

I don't read this as saying Abila is a territory of Trachnoties at all. If it was, there would be no need to specify "with Abila." As I undrestand it, Abila is the capital city of the territory of Abilene.

The city.

Why just Abila is the question. Why would only such a small part of the Ituerian empire be associated with Lysanias? Do you have evidence that Abila was the capital of Ituria? Was founded in some special way by Lysanias? There is no reason to associate it with such a long dead ans insignificant figure in the first place. Much less to do so uniquely in reference to Abila.

I'll get to the rest of this and add some comments on the above later when I have time.

spin

While waiting for Layman to return, just a few comments.

It is difficult for him to see that apologetic and scholarship can be extremely difficult to separate when dealing with sensitive areas dealt with by xians.

Outside the birth narrative in Luke which contains the Quirinius story there is no mention of Nazareth. 4:16 mentions something called Nazara and the other references are to variations on nazwraios. Outside the birth narrative there is no support for Nazareth. You can't have your birth narrative cake and eat it too.

Matthew is in total contrast to the version found in the Lucan birth narrative. All Layman needs to do is look, rather than making backs to the wall ideological defences.

On to Josephus

AJ 20.7.1.
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; but he took from him Chalcis

What is important is the phrase "Trachonitis with Abila", in which the Greek word "sun" is translated as "with" (a fair enough translation). This "sun" does not co-ordinate like "kai" ("and") does, but attaches what follow to what comes before. These are not simply two separate items, Trachonitis and Abila, but two related items, Trachonitis with Abila.

Further, one should note that in the phrase mentioning the tetrarchy of Lysanias, there is no "last" in the Greek. This is just Whiston attempting to clarify. The Greek is Lusania d' hautê gegonei tetrarchia. There is no reason for the reader to see that which had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias was Trachonitis with Abila.

And let me remind Layman that when asks for references it doesn't mean to secondary sources.


spin

GakuseiDon

I thought there was some evidence for Nazareth, even if it wasn't conclusive? Sources quoted in Christian Think-Tank: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nazy.html
So, evidence of habitation in BCE, and a reference possibly referring to 70 CE. Not evidence that there was a town called "Nazareth" at the time of Jesus, of course, but isn't that enough to suggest that there may have been?

Do you know of anything to say that either piece of evidence has been made up?

Ted Hoffman

Layman : Moreover, I'll stick with the real scholars,...

spin : ((You need to know something about the subject before you can identify the real scholars.))

Aliet : spin, I will have to steal ((this)).

spin

Doh, Gak, I'm not too interested in whether there actually was a Nazareth or not here.

What I am interested in is the assertion that Joseph and Mary were residents of Nazareth, especially when Fitzmyer is happy enough to jettison the Quirinius problem in the birth narrative because he couldn't see a way of saving it. "Nazareth" does not appear in the gospel of Luke outside the birth narrative, yet Layman cannot see that it is an ideological position to assert that they were residents of Nazareth. The nearest we get outside the birth narrative, which has so many problems especially when read in association with Matthew's birth narrative, is Lk 4:16 which talks of Nazara.

I'm not a great fan of mix and match theology.


spin

Peter Kirby

Acts 10:38 mentions Nazareth.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

The Gospels are all the evidence for Nazareth one needs.

Vinnie

Toto

It mentions Jesus of Nazareth. Does the original read Jesus the Nazarene or Jesus of (the town) Nazareth? It is in the context of a speech delivered by Peter after the conversion of Cornelius, which is one of the part of Acts that would seem to have close to the least claim for any historical basis, if there is any history to be found in Acts.

GakuseiDon

I'm not sure, given that it may have been "Jesus the Nazarene" rather than "Jesus of Nazareth".

Still, my question is: are those two bits of evidence beyond doubt, or are they made up?

spin

And Peter is certainly correct.


spin