spin

You wouldn't be having this conversation if someone hadn't been desperate enough to invent another Lysanias. You've seen this same ploy used over and over again here, personage fracturing, event reduplication (eg census, or tenure as legate), meaning bifurcation (remember for example that silly argument about gowra you touted? man meaning father? inordinate blunder). From the outside it all looks like the same self-delusion.


spin

judge

Why would Luke be desperate to invent one. If you are thinking of someone after Luke then your reasoning is circular.


We've seen two instances of Luke possibly being wrong, which I'm open to to. He could be wrong. He could have erred.
In this instance you just don't seem to have proved it. With the amount of data we have it is probably impossible to prove any of this to much of a degree.
You seem to have provided an explanation that allows for this. Not any more.


Well we've been over that enough, I dont care that much to keep going over it. I just don't see as much certainty in your own arguments as you do.
In any of these three cases you mention above you may well be right.

But if you insist that you are certainly right, well isn't that an alarm bell ?

If you think you are definitely right, then is there the slightest chance you may be having yourself on? Just the slightest chance?

If I can be delusional (as you suggest), what protects you?

spin

No, the modern writer desperate enough to invent a means of making Luke inerrantist.

What I have done is shown that there was no tangible reason for contemplating the subterfuge in the first place.

Evidence.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Let's put Josephus' bookends around "Luke's" Assertian:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant17.html

[What Caesar confirmed 4 BCE]

"4. When Caesar had heard these pleadings, he dissolved the assembly; but a few days afterwards he appointed Archelaus, not indeed to be king of the whole country, but ethnarch of the one half of that which had been subject to Herod, and promised to give him the royal dignity hereafter, if he governed his part virtuously. But as for the other half, he divided it into two parts, and gave it to two other of Herod's sons, to Philip and to Antipas, that Antipas who disputed with Archelaus for the whole kingdom. Now to him it was that Peres and Galilee paid their tribute, which amounted annually to two hundred talents, (21) while Batanea, with Trachonitis, as well as Auranitis, with a certain part of what was called the House of Zenodorus, (22) paid the tribute of one hundred talents to Philip; but Idumea, and Judea, and the country of Samaria paid tribute to Archelaus, but had now a fourth part of that tribute taken off by the order of Caesar, who decreed them that mitigation, because they did not join in this revolt with the rest of the multitude. There were also certain of the cities which paid tribute to Archelaus: Strato's Tower and Sebaste, with Joppa and Jerusalem; for as to Gaza, and Gadara, and Hippos, they were Grecian cities, which Caesar separated from his government, and added them to the province of Syria. Now the tribute-money that came to Archelaus every year from his own dominions amounted to six hundred talents."

Josephus:

Archelaus - Judea, Idumea and Samaria

(Herod) Antipas - Galilee and Peres

Philip - "a certain part of what was called the House of Zenodorus" (Abilene?)
Trachonitis, Bataneaas and Auranitis.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_3

[Status around 29? CE]

1
"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene,"

Luke:

Pilate - Judea (Archelaus removed)

Herod - Galilee

Philip - Ituraea and Trachonitis

Lysanias - Abilene

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant20.html

[What Agrippa received 41 CE]

"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, when he had been governor thereof four years."

Josephus:

Philip's Tetrarchy

Added the part of Trachonites Philip lacked

Subtracted Chalcis


Spin, thanks for pointing out this error. I think this is the common situation where if it wasn't for "Luke" no one would wonder if Josephus was referring to a second Lysanias here (and it is "Ly"sanias by The Way).

When I originally made my Inventory of errors in "Luke" I did not count this based on Marshall's NIGTC commentary which I used as a priMary source:

Page 134, Greek words replaced with English for the Ben-a-fit of those of us who unlike Jeffrey, never studied:

"Abilene is the territory around the city of Abila, N.W. of Damascus. In AD 37 it was given to Agrippa I, and in AD 53 to Herod Agrippa II. H.S. Cronin ('Abilene, the Jewish Herods and St. Luke', JTS 18, 1916-17, 63-67) suggested that it was these later transfers which made it part of the 'holy land' and thus led to its mention here. (This is more likely than Harvey's view (234) that it had formed part of Herod the Great's kingdom.) Wellhausen, 4, held that the Lysanias named here was an earlier ruler (Jos. Ant. 14:330; 15:92), so that Luke is guilty of an anachronism. The detailed notes in Creed, 307-309 and Schurer, History, I, 567-569, cite inscriptional evidence - already known to Godet, I, 168f., long before Wellhausen! - which makes it extremely probable that there was a second Lysanias during the reign of Tiberius."

I don't want to move the Primary focus here from direct examination of the evidence to direct examination of authority but let me say this about Marshall. In general I find him very good at identifying what the evidence is but I often find his conclusions are not supported by the evidence he has identified. The above is a prime example. Before this Thread I assumed that the inscriptional evidence Marshall referred to was a direct and distinguishing reference to a different Lysanias. I can see now that it is not. Therefore, Marshall's "extremely probable" conclusion of a second Lysanias is not justified by the evidence (I also recognize the exclamation point used by Marshall as the same one used by Flint for "pierced"). Marshall seems to think that if "Luke" did make an error here it was intentional. However, I think it more likely that it was unintentional. "Luke" read the later reference (Ant. 20) "tetrarchy of Lysanias" and assumed it referred to a recent previous Tetrarchy of a Lysanias (as opposed to the original Lysanias Tetrarchy).

I am wondering if Abila was NW or SW of Damascus since I've seen both descriptions. I suppose it's possible that Lysanias' Tetrarchy was SW of Damascus in general but the Abila portion was just a little to the NW.

I Am going to add this to my Inventory of Errors at ErrancyWiki. Good work. What else you got?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

judge

You don't seem to understand that by assuming this is subterfuge when you have failed to prove it is, is circular reasonong.

Rather like a religious fundamentalist.. though if you insist you cannot be wrong in a case like this?

spin

There is no historical reason for contemplating another Lysanias. Lysanias II only exists in the minds of those who needed him in the first place.

Hypocrisy is an interesting spectator sport.

Evidence is wonderful stuff. All you have to do is follow it to see if it goes where you want it to. If it doesn't, you rethink. I'll happily abandon any position I can't sustain. But then I'm not committed to any fixed position.


spin

judge

Problem is, if want it to go somewhere, we can't always see where it is going.



You cannot sustain this is an error, only that it may be. This has been your argument all along that there is no need for another Lysanias not that there is not one.

spin

?

:boohoo:

It works this way: imagine some lone report from antiquity that says Julius Caesar was at the battle of Philippi (where Brutus was killed). We would shrug it off as an obvious error. But wait, let's say St Fritz said it in chapter 57 of his Acts of the Latrinecleaners, then we suddenly find acolytes of Saint Fritz bending over backwards inventing multiple Julius Caesars or postulating that Julius Caesar had suffered only flesh wounds and was stitched up good and proper on the steps of Pompey's Theatre.


spin

judge

Riiiight, but lets say it tells us a guy called Lysanias was killed there rather than Julius Caeser. Makes quite a difference. There could be more than one Lysanias.

spin

What have you got against Saint Fritz? Why can't there be two Julius Caesars??


ipns