JoeWallack

JW:
The primary purpose of Wikipedia is informational. Pointing out errors or possible errors is secondary. Therefore I think the first paragraph should just be informational and a second paragraph should identify the issue of whether "Luke's" reference to Lysanias is a misunderstanding of Josephus.

The key to the issue is the following offending verse from Josephus:

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm

The question is does "tetrarchy of Lysanias" here refer to a place or a person? If it refers to a place than there is no known direct support for the Luke 3:1 assertian of a person Lysanias, as well as a reason for "Luke" to make this mistake, misunderstanding Josephus.

The problem with a Wikipedia presentation is where do you draw the line between informational and Polemics?

The evidence that "Luke" is in error here based on strength of evidence is:

1) There is no known supporting direct evidence for a person Lysanias at this time and place.

2) If Josephus meant a different Lysanias he presumably would have distinguished the later.

3) There is a theory that "Luke" used Josephus as a source and this could explain why "Luke" took an ambiguous phrase by itself, the wrong way.

The evidence that "Luke" is not in error here based on strength of evidence is:

1) There was a second person Lysanias that Josephus does not refer to -

1 - Because Josephus is primarily interested in Herods and Jews.

2 - Rulers often had the names of predecessor rulers.

The supposed inscription evidence is Apologetics and should be moved to the Talk page.

According to Marshall (TNIGTC Luke) Wellhausen is the published authority who claims "Luke" is in error.

Spin, I mentioned your Lysanias error to Richard Carrier who said he had never considered it before but would research it. I think it needs to be added to his Luke and Josephus article. It certainly looks to me that "Luke" used Josephus as a source and this is what she meant by "investigating". The Infancy Narrative is the best example. "Luke" either knew the Matthean IN or it's source but rejected it because none of it could be found in Josephus. What could be found was the Census of Quirinius. All part of "Luke's" movement from Revelation to supposed History.



Josephus

andrewcriddle

Julius Africanus und die Christliche Weltchronistik (Walter de Gruyter 2006) has an essay by R W Burgess Apologetics and Chronography.. pps 17-42 in which it is argued that Africanus simply gave the year of the Incarnation without being specific about day and month, and an essay by A Mosshammer The Christian era of Julius Africanus.. pps 83-112 which holds that Africanus dated the conception on the 25th of March.

(Both of these interesting essays cover much more than this specific point.)

Andrew Criddle

vid

I am not sure how it works with history in normal fields, where emotion and belief dont play major role, but... do we expect to get this problem eventually solved? Is there way to show Julius did / didn't say something about 25th march, so it would satisfy everyone?

spin

Thanks for the information, Andrew. I don't know how one could test either position, though the former seems to reflect the type of indication you gave earlier from Syncellus.


spin

spin

Roger Pearse has been vandalizing my stuff on Wiki once again, this time a table which compares the content of the two birth narratives here. He will try to assert his evangelical religion with all sorts of excuses. The favorite is to brand anything he disagrees with as "original research". That he thinks is sufficient to have it removed from Wiki. Of course, Roger has difficulties understanding what research is, other than that it is something he disagrees with. He's already vandalized the R._Joseph Hoffman entry and my Lysanias work.

I recommend that one keep an eye on his efforts because he seems to be running around Wiki changing anything that doesn't fit his religious commitments. Anything that clarifies biblical literature is not safe with him around. Roger is more transparently tendentious on Wiki than he is here, which is bad enough.

ETA:
When Roger removed my work on the page I mention here (Nativity of Jesus), he gave this reason:

Unreferenced (the 'ref's are bogus) original research text removed again (see talk page)

The "original research" was to list items which both narratives deal with. And below is the only "ref" found in the table.

When dealing with the narrative found in Matthew the first thing necessary is to read the text through and understand the story being told, before reading in conjunction with other texts. In Mt 1.18 Joseph and Mary were engaged but did not yet live together. In Mt 1.24 Joseph took Mary as his wife, ie they lived together, but had no physical relations. This continued until the child was born. We are told in Mt 2.1 that it happened in Bethlehem. The writer's presentation doesn't allow the reader to think that there was any change of venue. When the family returned from Egypt they were going back to their home in Judea, but, because of another warning, they didn't stay there but made their "home in a town called Nazareth", Mt 2.22-23. (And see the following section in the text.)

This was provided, because people commented about my showing Joseph's home as Bethlehem (as the text indicates). They continued to automatically insert the Lucan material into the Matthew text.

Roger, falling over his religious commitments, finds himself forced to make the nasty claim that the "ref" is bogus. This is cheap and unreasonable on his part.


spin

thedistillers

I don't care what is Roger Pearse's motivation; a comparative table that you have made yourself directly form the Bible doesn't belong to Wikipedia. Comparing IS a form of analysis, so the "original research" claim is correct.

spin

At that level of claim of "original research" you wouldn't allow anything on Wiki. If someone collates any information to present it on Wiki, your claim is that it is original research and you reduce the process to a farce. Try again but this time be serious.


spin

thedistillers

No. What would be allowed is well... What is currently allowed.

Comparing 2 ancient texts is not like providing a list of Wimbledon winners, for example. You cannot do that without proper research.

Wikipedia has rules. Try to respect them.

spin

Such as a comparative list, which I put up.

No evaluation is made. It is a presentation of data. A collation. The reader does the comparison.

Wikipedia has rules. Try to understand them. Then you can try to respect them.

I can only conclude that your position is similar to Roger's. You are apparently also falling over your beliefs. What a cheap and nasty type of censorship this is, trying to prevent people, ie readers, from analyzing the data.

Instead of taking such an unhelpful position, the most rational approach is to improve the data presented. If there is anything wrongly presented, I've been happy to correct it.


spin

bacht

Joe, what about the idea that the gospel writers simply counted backwards 40 years from the fall of the temple, and then another 30 years for Jesus' birthday? If the timeline was simply invented, why worry about Herod or Quirinius?