spin

In a recent thread I mentioned the fact that not only had Luke been in error over Quirinius, but that it had also been in error over Lysanias. Below are most of the facts regarding Lysanias and his relation to the reference in Luke 3:1.


Lysanias came to power in Chalkis on his father Ptolemy's death in 40BCE. Chalkis, sometimes referred to as Iturea and at the time of Philip also as part of Trachonitis, was a small realm north of Galilee to the south west of Damascus, an area which bordered on the Lebanon and included the city of Abila. He was long remembered by some Jews, as he harbored the Hasmonean prince Antigonus and supported him in his attempt to reclaim Judea in 40BCE.

History of the dynasty
Josephus provides a skeleton history of Chalkis from before the time of Pompey till the territory was given to Herod by Augustus. He tells us that the people of Damascus asked to take control of that city to avoid Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus [circa 85BCE], AJ 13.15.2 (13.392) and that Pompey devastated the territory of Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus [64BCE], AJ 14.3.2 (14.38-9). Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, who had collected an army and sought the favour of Fabius [a Roman official] with bribes was brought back to his country by Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus, because of their kinship, AJ 14.12.1 (14.297). Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus, died and his son Lysanias on succeeding to his throne made a pact of friendship with Antigonus [40BCE]. Cleopatra contrived to get Syria into her possession; so she had Antony kill Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, accusing him of his bringing the Parthians upon those countries [36BCE], AJ 15.4.1 (15.92). Zenodorus, according to Josephus, leased the house of Lysanias [circa 30CE], but there were complaints about Zenodorus's management of his subjects which led to his territories being given to King Herod [20BCE], AJ 15.10.1 (15.344-48).

Although Josephus is unaware of the relationship between Zenodorus and Lysanias but an inscription found at Heliodorus (CIG 4523) reads "Zenodorus son of the tetrarch Lysanias", providing a relationship that would make sense in that the territories of his father were given back to the family to manage on the death of Cleopatra.

Titles
The three rulers of Chalkis that we know of minted their own coins and the coins were engraved with similar inscriptions, all on the pattern, "(name) tetrarch and high priest": Ptolemy - "PTOLEMIOU TERARCOU KAI ARCIEREWS"; Lysanias - "LYSANIOU TERARCOU KAI ARCIEREWS"; and Zenodorus - "ZHNODWROU TERARCOU KAI ARCIEREWS". There can be no doubt therefore that Lysanias called himself a tetrarch and that Zenodorus was around at the right time in the right place to have been the son of Lysanias.

After the territory that belonged to Lysanias passed into the hands of Herod it was inherited by his son Philip who held it until he died in 34CE. Luke says that Philip was the tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis and Iturea was where one found Abila.

--o0o--

Luke 3:1
This should be sufficient to deal with the dynasty which ruled the area which included Abila, but the issue has been complicated by a reference to Lysanias in the gospel of Luke (3:1):

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate ruled Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene... (Abilene is an adjectival form of the place name Abila, located in the territory of Lysanias.)

This places Lysanias still alive 65 years after his death, so at least one other Lysanias has been proposed to justify the Lucan reference to this ruler in 29CE.

Augustus, Livia and the "August lords"
An inscription (CIG, 4521) found at Suk near Damascus (published in Revue Biblique in 1912 p. 533) reads as follows:

For the salvation of the Au[gust] lords
and of [all] their household,
Nymphaios freedman of Ea[gle]
Lysanias tetrarch esta[blished]
this street and other things.

August lords (kuriwn Sebastwn -- Sebastos is the translation given for Augustus in the East) was a reference to the Roman emperor and a royal woman. Some believe that they were Tiberius and his mother Livia, which would mean that the inscription comes from after 14CE and therefore, being at least 50 years after the fact, too late to be dealing with the known Lysanias, so there must have been another later Lysanias. However, this logic is falacious.

During the life of Augustus, a reference to him and his wife as the Qeoi Sebastoi was included in the mysteries of Demeter at Ephesus (1). While Augustus avoided anything that would link him to the divine in Italy, things were different in the East. According to G. Grether, "It was natural that the states of the East, especially those most accustomed to pay homage to the wives and daughters of their Hellenistic monarchs, should have a tendency to include the women of the families of great Romans in the honors which they conferred, and, when, under Augustus, this tendency centered on the imperial family, it was, of course Livia who most often received honors of a divine nature together with Augustus. As he was acclaimed a deity incarnate and identified with Zeus and other deities, so Livia was honored as a goddess and frequently represented with the attributes of deity, especially those of Hera and Demeter" (2). At the middle gymnasium at Pergamum an inscription was found 'dedicated to qeoi sebastoi, the "new gods" Augustus and Livia, alongside the traditional ones Hermes and Herakles' (3).

There is no reason therefore to look further than Augustus and his wife Livia in the reference to the "August lords" and this relieves us from the need of unnecessarily inventing another Lysanias, for if the inscription can simply be seen as having been made by the freedman in his old age a few decades after the death of the man who set him free, then there is no indication here of another Lysanias.

Josephus and another Lysanias?
There is just one more issue which is brought up in support of an extra Lysanias. The fact that Lysanias was long remembered by the Jews -- at least in the reports of Josephus -- has led to some confusion over his references to Lysanias. Josephus tells us, JW 2.11.5, about the lands received by Agrippa when he was made king:

Moreover, he bestowed on Agrippa his whole paternal kingdom immediately, and added to it, besides those countries that had been given by Augustus to Herod, Trachonitis and Auranitis, and still besides these, that kingdom which was called the kingdom of Lysanius.

Some have tried to take this to mean that the kingdom of Lysanias was somehow a term that was recent at the time of the bestowal. However, the text is a little different from what this translation shows. It literally talks of a <kingdom "called 'of Lysanias'">, not of a <kingdom of Lysanias>. That it was "called the kingdom of Lysanias" and not that it was "kingdom of Lysanias" indicates only that the name of Lysanias had stuck to the place. It does not indicate some figure current at the time referred to, but a means of referring to the kingdom, and it had apparently been a longstanding reference. This is similar to another reference in Josephus, AJ 20.7.1:

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 Chalkis

In fact Trachonitis was part of Philip's inheritance from Herod (AJ 18.4.6, Lk 3:1). And once again the name of Lysanias the tetrarch is attached to Abila. As we've seen this is not strange, but it is also no indication that there was an extra Lysanias.

There is no reason to create an extra Lysanias. All the references including the inscriptions we have seen are easily explained as being to the same person -- all except one, the reference to Lysanias at the time of John the Baptist in Lk 3:1. That puts Luke out of sync with all the other voices. The simplest explanation for this is that the Lucan writer made a mistake. It happens, as has been seen with the Quirinius reference in dating the birth of Jesus.


spin

spin

This topic has been dealt with before here and people might find useful ideas and alternatives in this thread.

The current thread is an effort to re-present in a coherent fashion the data for not creating another Lysanias. It also presents extra evidence.


spin

Ben C Smith

I agree in principle with not multiplying entities here.

Would you regard this as potential evidence that Luke had read (and at times misunderstood) Josephus before he wrote his two volumes? I can imagine someone reading Wars 2.11.5 above and mistakenly assuming that Lysanias had been the most recent ruler of the area.

Ben.

spin

I would agree that it is potential evidence, yes, though I haven't seen anywhere near sufficient evidence in favour of the proposition. And I'd also agree that your imagined process of thought could explain how a Lucan writer might happen on the idea of Lysanias.


spin

the_cave

He could have also read it in Antiquities, btw...

Ben C Smith

Agreed. He could have. I make no secret of the fact that I tend to favor dating Luke-Acts after the Antiquities. I also make no secret of the fact that, so far, my evidence for doing so is slender. Not nonexistent, but slender. Which is why I am interested in this sort of tracing of the error, if indeed an error it is.

Ben.

judge

Well it seems strange on the surface, but whether your explanation makes it "not strange" is probably for others to judge.

Well, who was tetrach of Abilene at this time if not someone named Lysanias?

spin

Philip. Abila (of which Abilene is an adjective) was part of the territory of the Itureans and Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis. Josephus at times places it with Trachonitis.


spin

judge

So there was no office of the Tetrach of Abilene on it's own?

Only the office of Tetrach of Iturea and Trachonitis.

Is that right?

added in edit:

And the text should read...In the fifteenth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate ruled Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Abilene (the territory of Lysanias.)......perhaps?

judge

As pointed out in other threads Schurer would disagree with the OP.
Has Schurers work ever been refuted in peer reviewed work that anyone knows of?

from here