spin

That's correct.

I guess so, but the separation isn't an exact one, as Iturea was part of Trachonitis, the part where Itureans were found. All the possessions that were of the house of Lysanias, which Zenodorus "leased" according to Josephus, passed into the hands of Herod (AJ 15.10.2, BJ 1.20.4) around 20BCE. They were inherited by Philip, who when he died had possession of Trachonitis, as well as Gaulanitis and Batanea (AJ 18.4.6). It is Trachonitis which is our interest. BJ 1.20.4 gives us a little backgrounder which starts:

he [Caesar] added to his [Herod's] kingdom both the region called Trachonitis, and what lay in its neighborhood, Batanea, and the country of Auranitis; and that on the following occasion: Zenodorus, who had hired the house of Lysanias, had all along sent robbers out of Trachonitis among the Damascenes

You'll see that it was Trachonitis which was the essential part of Augustus's "gift" to Herod and the reason stems from the fact that Zenodorus, who was in Lysanias's tetrarchy (which is here equated to Trachonitis), couldn't administer it properly. He is accused of sending robbers from Trachonitis against Damascus and Augustus gave it to Herod to do a better job. Abila was a plain and a town on the south-western slope of the Anti-Lebanon.

In another passage, AJ 20.7.1, Josephus says,

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 Chalkis

Notice how Josephus is adding Trachonitis to the territory when we know that it was already part of Philip's domain. Also notice how Abila is tied to Trachonitis: in Greek the preposition sun, "with", carries the notion of "together with", such that Abila is bound to Trachonitis, and we are told that it had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias. (Chalkis, which was also part of -- the father of Lysanias -- Ptolemy's territory and removed by Pompey, once give to Agrippa, was now taken away.)

That would be nice, but the wording doesn't allow for this. The grammatical structure is the same as with Philip (and tetrarchew is a verb in each case, "rule as tetrarch").


spin

spin

Schuerer assumes more than one Lysanias without supplying the reasoning.

Schuerer doesn't take into consideration the fact that Lysanias had supported the Hasmonean Antigonus who reigned over Judea for three years before Herod finally got rid of him, so Lysanias had a fame in Judea as a supporter of the last Hasmonean ruler. He and his father had given sustenance to Antigonus and his father was even married to the sister of Antignous, so there was kinship between them as well as the tactical and military support.

Schuerer seems unaware of the coin and inscriptional evidence that Zenodorus was the son of Lysanias. Josephus tells us specifically that Zenodorus took over the house of Lysanias and we can now understand why: he was his son.

There is no reason other than the fact that the name obviously stuck. Josephus used it when talking of Zenodorus having leased the house of Lysanias, which was a pretty obvious usage. In fact Josephus simply uses it from then on.

Schuerer is unaware of the fact that Lysanias, like his father and his son, called himself tetrarch and high priest on his coins. (See here for Ptolemy and Lysanias, and here for Zenodorus.)

Hopefully it is obvious that Schuerer has no facts at all to back up his opinion here.

As I've shown in the OP, this cannot be used the way Schuerer wants to use it. There is no reason to eke a late Lysanias out of the data.

The OP and my comments here adequately refute Schuerer. Hey, it's not peer reviewed, but I've supplied you sufficient data for you to work it out.


spin

judge

Cannot be used that way or perhaps is not meant that way? In this thread which you referenced you wrote,

WRT the inscription.

Even in the OP you suggest an alternate explanation which would not require the second Lysanias, but have you shown it cannot be used to refer to a second Lysanius?
The dating is always going to sow some doubt, perhaps.

spin

Schuerer was working on the assumption that "August lords" must refer to Tiberius and Livia, but I have shown that that assumption has no basis. It is only one possibility. I've shown that sebastoi has been used for Augustus and Livia, so as I said, "this cannot be used the way Schuerer wants to use it. There is no reason to eke a late Lysanias out of the data." Note that I didn't say he was wrong in the statement, but that it doesn't support him; it doesn't show what he wants, sufficient reason to create a second Lysanias.

It could be used to refer to a fifteenth Lysanias, but nothing points to there having been a fifteenth one. Historical practice says that you don't duplicate figures unless there is enough evidence to do so.

But you might ask where and why. When Judith talks about "Nebuchadnezzar who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh", Judith 1:1, would anyone seriously consider creating another Nebuchadnezzar?


spin

Ben C Smith

Hi, spin. I was just wondering why you are so masterfully convincing with the secular historians yet so supremely unpersuasive when it comes to the sacred writers.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Hi Spin. What you mean to say is that "Luke" contradicts "Matthew" over the dating of Jesus' supposed birth, right?

The basic chronology of the offending tetrarchy looks like this?:

Chalkis (Iturea) part of Trachonitis, Abila included

Ptolemy----------40 BCE---Tetrarch

Lysanias----Son--40 BCE---Tetrarch

Zenodorus--Son--30 BCE---Tetrarch

Herod (Great)----20 BCE

Philip-------Son---4 BCE

Herod (Agrippa)--34 CE

--Loses Chalkis (Iturea), Gains the rest of Trachonitis, Keeps Abila




Joseph

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

spin

I guess I'm not faithful enough to the sacred writers.


spin

spin

That's not what I meant, but it might be a consequence. I merely think that the Lucan writer erroneously placed the reference to the Quirinius census in the passage (either because that was the tradition he received or else becauses that what seemed necessary in his own analysis).

With a little more data.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Just on the later dates for the moment, perhaps a timeline should
include the separate receiving of the land by Agrippa II in 53 AD.

The 37 AD reception by Agrippa I probably takes care of an earlier
concern that I had that the mention by Luke could date the gospel account past 53 AD (to explain why he included Abilene as part of the powerful six-fold chronological synchronism). The 37 AD date fits well with the Theophilus as High Priest c.40 AD composition date.

Looking forward to a little summary of the comparative theories.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

judge

You haven't actually refuted Schurer but rather an article which mentions his work. Unless you have read Schurer, but you dont seem to have?

But I agree you seem to have refuted the portion of the article I quoted.