Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-07-2004, 11:39 PM

Here's another reference, apparently from the 1911 Enc. Brit:

http://51.1911encyclopedia.org/L/LY/LYSANIAS.htm

Quote:

. . . The explanation given by M.. Krenkel (Joseplius und Lucas, Leipzig, 1894, p. 97) is that Josephus does not mean to imply that Abila was the only possession of Lysanias, and that he calls it the tetrarchy or kingdom of Lysanias because it was the last remnant of the domain of Lysanias which remained under direct Roman administration until the time of Agrippa. The expression was borrowed from Josephus by Luke, who wrongly imagined that Lysanias I. had ruled almost up to the time, of the bestowal of his tetrarchy upon Agrippa, and therefore to the days of John the Baptist. Two inscriptions are adduced as evidence for the existence of a younger Lysanias Bockh, C.I.G.452I and 4523. The former is inconclusive, and in the latter the reading . . .. is entirely conjectural; the name might equally well be Lysimachus or Lysias.

Vorkosigan · 03-08-2004, 01:54 AM

Quote:

[B]I read the "coin data." One coin that indicates that, indeed, there was a Lysanius that ruled untiul 36 BCE. We all agree there was such a figure. Nothing about that proves there was not another one that better explains the references in Josephus that I mention above and the inscription dating after 14 CE, as well as the reference in Luke 3:1.

Yes, but the reason you've invented that one is because you want to preserve the historical accuracy of Luke. No other Lysanius is known from any reliable source.

Quote:

Luke was hardly a fiction writer.

Do you honestly believe that Peter had a vision about the food laws? Of course Luke wrote fiction!

Quote:

Both his accuracy and his literary genre attest to his intent to write history.

Neither accuracy nor his genre attest to anything. Lots of fiction writers are very accurate, lots of historians are sloppy. Luke's genre is some kind of romance, hardly the stuff of history.

Quote:

Could he be mistaken here? Of course, historians often make mistakes. But to claim that Lysanias is a fictitious reference when Tiberius, Pilate, Herod, and Philip are all correctly placed and named is itself a flight of fancy on your part. Luke is obviously well informed about the leaders of that time.

And just as obviously, made a mistake. The reason you've invented the second one is to save Luke from error, not because history demands it.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr · 03-08-2004, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan

Do you honestly believe that Peter had a vision about the food laws? Of course Luke wrote fiction!

Probably Peter had just forgotten that he had told Mark to write down that Jesus had declared all foods clean , long before Peter had his vision.

It does seem strange that Luke gratuituously includes Lysanius in his list of rulers. What relevance does it have? It seems he is trying to include details, just to make it look as though he has done lots of research.

As we are on Luke 3, why does he say that Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, as though they were joint high priests?

It is like saying 'In the year 2004, Bush and Carter were presidents', and pointing out that Jimmy Carter still has a lot of influence, with him having been president.

spin · 03-08-2004, 03:50 AM

Looking back at Goldberg's data:

Quote:

Two copies of the inscription were found at Suk, not far from Damascus, which has been identified with one of the towns called Abila. Schurer quotes the inscription, which was published in Revue Biblique in 1912 (p. 533ff), as follows:

Code:

                    Huper tes ton kurion Se[baston]
                    soterias kai tou sum[pantos]
                    auton oikou, Numphaios Ae[tou]
                    Lusaniou tetrarchou apele[utheros]
                    ten odon ktisas k.t.l.

This could be translated, "For the salvation of the August lords and of all their household, Nymphaios freedman of Eagle Lysanias tetrarch established this street and other things." The square brackets, [ ], indicate letters that do not appear in the inscription and have to be interpolated; since this occurs at the ends of each of the first four lines, apparently the right edge of this stone was lost. The crucial interpolation here is Sebaston (genitive plural of Augustus); if this is the correct reading, then the argument can be applied that this term was not used prior to 14 CE, based on Tacitus, Annals 1.8: "Tiberius and Livia were his [Augustus Caesar's] heirs, and Livia was adopted into the Julian family with the name 'Augusta.'" Schurer notes that some other inscriptions have been found in which Tiberias and Livia are called Sebastoi.

I don't think Schuerer is necessarily correct here. Sebastos was the Greek translation of "Augustus", ie the title used by Octavian throughout his political life. His wife Livia, also a strong political presence during his reign, was called "Augusta" as can be seen from a coin here, which has a bust of Livia (on the reverse of a coin of Augustus) with the inscription "IVLIA AVGVSTA GENETRIX ORBIS". There is even a Temple of Augustus and Livia at Vienne in France, showing that they were worshipped together. There were temples to Augustus at Sebastos and Sebastia in Judea and no doubt Livia was also represented at these temples.

I see no reason to follow Schuerer, assuming his reconstruction is correct. I think that it is more likely that the "August lords" were Augustus and Livia.

It seems incredible that when a hypothetical problem crops up regarding a statement from a gospel writer about history, we get closet inerrantists who run to duplicating people in order to maintain the writer's veracity. I explained early in this thread that there is a good chance that there was a simple misunderstanding on the part of the writer of a written source. This seems far easier to accept than to think that the Lucan writer refers specifically to some hitherto unknown and unimportant minor politico in a distant tiny realm.

spin

spin · 03-08-2004, 08:00 AM

Sorry, just to clarify my last post,

the inscription cited, if it represents Augustus and Livia, must obviously be dated within the reign of Augustus, ie some time before 14 AD.

Now, the name of Lysanias, ie he who had been killed by Mark Anthony, was still being used with reference to the land which was hosted the robber Zenodorus until Varus took care of him (see Josephus, Jewish War 1.20.4), probably around 4 BCE.

A freed slave could easily have referred to Lysanias even 30 years later if it were a pivotal point in his life, so the inscription which Schuerer refers to doesn't help in his efforts to save Luke for inerrancy.

We need no duplication of Lysaniases. What we have is most likely a simple understandable mistake, not fiction, not deliberate hoodwinking, just the misconstruing of a source text which referred to the land once held by Lysanias.

spin

Doctor X · 03-08-2004, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Luke was hardly a fiction writer. Both his accuracy and his literary genre attest to his intent to write history.

Such as dating the birth nearly ten years after another "historian" dated it?

Such as miscasting Paul's opinions?

Such as having Judas spontaneously rupture?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

--J.D.

Layman · 03-08-2004, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Such as dating the birth nearly ten years after another "historian" dated it?

Such as miscasting Paul's opinions?

Such as having Judas spontaneously rupture?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

--J.D. [/B]

Well, in the section I was discussing, such as Luke getting all the other rulers in the sentence correct and correctly placed.

But Luke and Matthew both place Jesus' birth in the reign of King Herod.

Vauge allegations of "miscasting" opinions demonstrate nothing.

Acts does not record that Judas spontaneously ruptured.

Layman · 03-08-2004, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Yes, but the reason you've invented that one is because you want to preserve the historical accuracy of Luke. No other Lysanius is known from any reliable source.

Not me. The first scholar I read on this was Fitzmyer. Many others say the question is very open.

Quote:

Do you honestly believe that Peter had a vision about the food laws? Of course Luke wrote fiction!

Sure, I believe Peter had visions. I also believe Paul had visions. And ya know what, Paul himself says he did. So who are you to say that the early Christians didn't believe they had visiosn?

Quote:

Neither accuracy nor his genre attest to anything. Lots of fiction writers are very accurate, lots of historians are sloppy. Luke's genre is some kind of romance, hardly the stuff of history.

You set records for unproven assertions Vork. Luke is writing history. He tell us that is what he is writing. His books do not comport with the ancient romance genre.

Quote:

And just as obviously, made a mistake. The reason you've invented the second one is to save Luke from error, not because history demands it.

I think history suggests the existence of another Lysanias for the reasons I stated. Reasons you have completely ignored.

Doctor X · 03-08-2004, 02:19 PM

Quote:

But Luke and Matthew both place Jesus' birth in the reign of King Herod.

Quirinius started in 6 CE whilst Herod was DEAD by 4 BCE. Try again.

Quote:

Acts does not record that Judas spontaneously ruptured.

Au contraire mon ami [He knows no French!--Ed.]

Acts 1:18 Now this man [Judas--Ed.] bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.

Try again.

--J.D.

Toto · 03-08-2004, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
. . .

Sure, I believe Peter had visions. I also believe Paul had visions. And ya know what, Paul himself says he did. So who are you to say that the early Christians didn't believe they had visiosn?

This is not Peter saying he had a vision - it is a later story telling inventing a vision. How can we be sure that it is a story? Because it would have been highly unlikely for Peter to have been so wishy washy on the subject of table fellowship if he had had such a vision from God, or if Jesus had said anything on the question.

Quote:

You set records for unproven assertions Vork. Luke is writing history. He tell us that is what he is writing. His books do not comport with the ancient romance genre.

They do, but that is subject for another thread.

Quote:

I think history suggests the existence of another Lysanias for the reasons I stated. Reasons you have completely ignored.

Which reasons? All of your reasons have been adequately rebutted by someone.

If there were two Lysanias', would not the younger one be designated Lysanias son of X, or Lysanias of Y? The Herod's all seem to have had some way of telling them apart.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2004, 08:00 AM	#25
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Sorry, just to clarify my last post, the inscription cited, if it represents Augustus and Livia, must obviously be dated within the reign of Augustus, ie some time before 14 AD. Now, the name of Lysanias, ie he who had been killed by Mark Anthony, was still being used with reference to the land which was hosted the robber Zenodorus until Varus took care of him (see Josephus, Jewish War 1.20.4), probably around 4 BCE. A freed slave could easily have referred to Lysanias even 30 years later if it were a pivotal point in his life, so the inscription which Schuerer refers to doesn't help in his efforts to save Luke for inerrancy. We need no duplication of Lysaniases. What we have is most likely a simple understandable mistake, not fiction, not deliberate hoodwinking, just the misconstruing of a source text which referred to the land once held by Lysanias. spin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.