capnkirk

Here is still another reference to supplement Kirby's. The relevant part reads:

Roland

Thanks, everyone, for your responses, Peter and CapnKirk in particular.

Layman

John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, at 140.

Ant 19:274-275: Now when Claudius had purged all those soldiers whom he suspected from the army, which he did immediately, he published an edict, and therein confirmed that kingdom to Agrippa which Gaius had given him, and therein commended the king highly. He also made all addition to it of all that country over which Herod, who was his grandfather, had reigned, that is, Judea and Samaria; and this he restored to him as due to his family. But for Abila {a} of Lysanias, and all that lay at Mount Libanus, he bestowed them upon him, as out of his own territories. He also made a league with this Agrippa, confirmed by oaths, in the middle of the forum, in the city of Rome.

This seems to be discussing a later Lysanius who ruled Abila.

Vorkosigan

There were not two Lysanius. The coin evidence is clear that there was only one, and Luke has erred.

http://www.members.aol.com/FlJosephus2/lysaniasCoin.htm



Vorkosigan

Layman

Your quote, which someone else had already provided, hardly proves your assertion.

It does seem less likely that the inscription was made at least 50 years after King Lysanias' reign. And it does seem that Josephus refers to another Lysanias, rather than, for example, referring to the tetrarchy of Lysanias -- who had been dead for 100 years or so -- in the same breath as the tetrarchy of Philip -- who had only recently died and no successor had yet beeen appointed. Antiq. 18.237. It's not entirely clear, but I think another Lysanias is a better reading of the evidence and better explains the inscription.

Besides, if there was a royal and famous Lysanias, odds are there were others. Afterall, we had four different Herods rule in Palestine.

I won't yet claim that Luke is proven correct on this point, but the vagueries of the other references in Josephus as well as the inscription evidence prevents any serious claim that he is proven wrong.

Vorkosigan

Layman, I don't think you read the whole thing. Coin data indicate that there was only one Lysanius of Abilene. If you have evidence of others, by all means provide it. Really, Luke was a fiction writer and it is unsurprising that he made errors in his presentation. I assure you, Christianity won't crash to the ground over this, Layman.

Vorkosigan

Toto

Goldberg uses this as an example of Lysanias continuing to be associated with Abila years after his death:

I agree that this is not 100% proof of an error in Luke, but it certainly looks like aLuke read Josephus, but not carefully enough, and assumed as Layman did that the references to Abile of Lysanias referred to a later tetrarch.

Layman

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.

Luke was hardly a fiction writer. Both his accuracy and his literary genre attest to his intent to write history. 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. Since there is data showing he may also be right about his fifth reference, it's simply your own agenda that precludes your from admitting the possibility.

Layman

Goldberg has assumed that all the other references to Lysanias must be the first one. It's circular reasoning. And his dismissal of the inscription evidence seems much too rash.

And how Luke could not notice that Lysanias was killed by M. Antony and his lands given to Cleoptra is unexplaned and seems most unlikely. Ultimately guys, this argument that Luke read Josephus poorly falls apart when you try and put too much weight on it. The more references you attribute to Luke reading Josephus, the more familiar with his work you claim he is, thus rending this ad-hoc, haphazard reading explanation unreasonable.

Toto

Actually, Goldberg is quoting Schurer for the proposition that Lysanias' name stuck to Abilene long after his death, with other examples besdies Josephus, so it is not simple circular logic.

It looks to me like aLuke just made an understandable mistake in reading one of his "many sources", whether or not it was Josephus. Does anyone claim that this author of Luke was present at Jesus' baptism or writing close to that time?