Layman

Luke was either wrong about when Quirnius ruled or referred, as many scholars have suggested, that he refered to a census before Quirinius. But Luke clearly places Jesus' birth in the reign of King Herod.

"falling headlong" is hardly spontaneous.

Layman

The point is that it cannot be presumed ahistorical everytime someone reports someone having a vision. Obviously there were early Christians who claimed to have visions.

Fee free to quote Pervo as much as you want.

Not at all. Though some have expressed disagreement on some of the points, they have hardly refuted the arguments for a second Lysanias, or responded to all of my points.

They may have been so designated. Or maybe not. Or maybe not in what has survived. Afterall, Mark refers to "King Herod" when he is actually referring to Herod Antipas. Matthew refers to a King Herod and a Herod the Tetarch, much as Josephus does re: Lysanias. But he never mentions the "Antipas" name.

It's also possible that the older Lysanias was distinguished in some way. Afterall, Josephus pinpoints him by refering to him as "Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy." Josephus also vaguely refers to a "house of Lysanias," again suggesting that there was a powerful family at issue.

Toto

Exactly which of your points do you think still need a response?

Layman

I'm not inclined to play foresnic posting with you Toto. I made arguments. Some were responded to and some not. You think that those responded to were "refuted" and I do not.

NOGO

I did not succeed in convincing Layman that early Christians believed that the end of the world was going to happen within their generation.

Overwhelming evidence is not enough for Layman.

There is a bias here that evidence and logic will not change.

spin

Not wishing to waste my time on Layman (who seems to do little other than cite preferred authorities), but to clarify for interested parties,

The only reason for a case for a second Lysanias is based on

1) inerrantist desires not to have Luke saying anything wrong, and
2) apologetic scholars who wish to shape the available evidence, such as Schuerer, Fitzmyer et al.

Without the need to save Luke's face, no-one would have thought of creating a new Lysanias to have control of Abilene in 29 CE.

Lysanias lost control of his territory to Cleopatra, Mark Antony killed him (see below for all references). The territory later cropped up in the possession of the robber Zenodorus at the time Varus was proconsul of Syria (circa 7 BCE - 6 CE), the territory still being linked by name to Lysanias to specifiy where Zenodorus ensconced himself.

Reading Josephus, you'd know that this last suggestion was plainly wrong. Josephus says, "Zenodorus... had hired the house of Lysanias". What, had hired this "powerful family" according to Layman? Doh.

With Antony terminating that "powerful family"'s control of the territory, which some time after the death of Cleopatra found its way into the hands of Zenodorus only to go back into the hands of the Romans -- and the territory was still referred to by attaching Lysanias's name to it. Look at the phrase from JW 2.11.5: "that kingdom which was called the kingdom of Lysanius". You mightn't remember Abilene, but it seems you'll remember the kingdom of Lysanias. JW 2.12.8 merely talks of "the kingdom of Lysanias". The name of Lysanias clearly lingers on long after the man is dead. So when we come to AJ 19.5.1, is there any reason to believe that "Abila of Lysanias" had somehow made its way back into the hands of someone else by the name of Lysanias? or are we simply dealing with what we have already seen, ie the name of Lysanias lingering on? Occam says the latter.


spin

Doctor X

Layman:

There were no such censuses . . . censii . . . particularly any that required a person to return to the place of their birth. It is not "clear" to anyone that he places it during the reign of Herod. However, thank you for stating that Lk was wrong. Inerrants will not agree with you.

Of course it may be Mt who was wrong. Frankly, methinks both created narratives to serve similar purposes in different ways.

You think he planned it?

--J.D.

Layman

I made no such admission. I said it was a possibility. Most scholars think he was wrong. Most scholars also conclude that Luke places Jesus' birth during the reign of King Herod. He and Matthew agree on that, at least.

It may be that Matthew was wrong and Luke was right. Or Luke was right and Matthew wrong. Or that they agree and were both right. Or that they agree and were both wrong.


You did not say unplanned, you said spontaneous--as if there was no cause. The physical cause is there. Judas fell. Why he fell is not mentioned by Luke.

Doctor X

Layman:

Not the scholars I have read. The link to Quirinius is clear. Herod is long dead.

Both have literary devices to get Junior to be from the house of David and different places. This suggests that both are literary creations and, yes, many scholars agree with that!

They cannot agree because they link the birth to separate dates nearly ten years appart at least.

Okay, now I get you. I considered the fall pretty "spontaneous." How you can trip in a field and evicerate yourself? You have to imagine a Monty Pythonesque explanation! I may have given the impression of "spontaneous" as in he was sitting in a chair sipping Maneschewitz when he suddenly exploded.

However, this contradicts Mt's story about him hanging himself!

--J.D.

Layman

As an initial matter, Fitzmyer is hardly an apologist. He refers to attempts to reconcile the genealogies in Matthew and Luke as "pious speculation" that "does not summon up great credence." He also describes the census as "a purely literary device used by him to associate Mary and Joseph, residents of Nazareth, with Bethlehem." To suggest, therefore, that he is so biased that he would grasp at meritless straws only to prove Luke's accuracy on the rather vague reference to Lysanias is so unfounded it's almost humorous. I am much less familiar with Schurer, but from what I have read makes your assertion as to him just as inaccurate. Schurer is one of the staunchest scholarly opponents of the attempts to salvage the historicity of Luke's reference to the census. So again, to turn around and call him an apologist and suggest he'd bend the truth or ignore evidence merely to uphold Lucan accuracy is unfounded. In any event, methinks you are projecting here.

Moreover, I'll stick with the real scholars, including the nonapologists Fitzmyer and Schurer, on the question of the inscription, which attests to a Lysanias tetrarch no later than 14 CE and as late as 29 CE. Not even Goldberg challenges this reading of the inscription. Nor do I buy the notion that the Lysanias being referred to was the one who was freed as a slave 50 - 65 years earlier (assuming of course that it happened on the last day of Lysanias' rule). That seems most unlikely.

After reading the reference in Wars, I admit to finding this passage confusing. It does sound like it's referring to Zendorus' use of the Itchucien Empire. If anyone can offer more clarification I'd appreciate it.

First, Antony did not terminate the family. Josephus only records the death of King Lysanias.

Second, there is evidence that Zendorus was himself connected to the Lysanias family--as attested by a monument at Heliopolis.

Third, the territory did not find it's way to Zendorus only to fall back into Roman hands. The picture is more complicated than that. Zendorus reigned for many years and then the territory was split into several sections. Even prior to Zeondorus' death, Trachonitis--a part of the Itchucien Empire--was given to Herod the Great. Ant. 15.343/16.271. Later, upon Zendorus' death, Ulatha and Paneus--also parts of the Itchucien Empire--were also given to Herod the Great. Ant. 15.360. And even later, Trachonitis and Paneus were passed on to Philip the Tetrarch. Ant. 17.189. No mention is made of Abilene ever being passed on to Herod the Great or to Philip. It was only a small part of the original territory and in no way comprised any significant part of Ptolemy's kingdom. That part of the Itchucien Empire was not given to a Herod or any his descendants until around 40 CE or so, when Claudius granted it to Agrippa I. With this sequence of events understood, we are in a better position to evaluate Josephus' references to Lysanias and Abilene.

Ptolemy was King of the Itureans. His empire covered much of Lebanon and beyond, reaching, on the east, to just below Damascus. It's capital was Chalcis, in the Bekaa valley. Ptolemy reigned for 45 years. His son Lysanias took office upon his death, but did not last very long.

Here we have the death of Lysanias and the end of his short lived tenure (less than four years) as King of the Itureans. Zendorus thereafter took over the entire Kingdom.

Gaius' grant was confirmed by Claudius with more particularity, as will be discussed in more detail below. But note that the reference to the tetrarchy of Philip is mentioned in the same section as the tetrarchy of Lysanias. For me, this counts against the notion that the "tetrarchy of Lysanias" is meant to refer to the Iturien Empire. The tetrarchy of Philip was vacant because Philip had only recently died, whereas Lysanias the son of Ptolemy had died 70+ years earlier. But even more telling is that the "tetrarchy of Philip" included substantial portions of the Iturien Empire, demonstrating -- at least -- that the "tetrarchy of Lysanias" was not a shorthand for those lands.

The notion that the name of Lysanias still "lingered on" 70+ years after his death fails to explain the evidence. In the first instance, Lysanias ruled less than four years and was otherwise an obscure fellow. If anything, we might expect the land to be remembered for his father Ptolemy, who reigned for more than 4 decades and founded the Kingdom. Or perhaps for Zendonus, who reigned fore more than two decades and was the last one to rule over the entirety of the Kingdom as a whole.

But even more important is that Josephus describes Abila/Abilene as being a "tetrarchy of Lysanias" or "the kingdom of Lysanias." Abila/Abilene was never any such thing under Lysanias, Ptolemy's son. It was a small and insignificant part of the Iturien Empire. So even if the Lysanias name lingered over that empire, it cannot explain why Abila would be described as the kingdom or tetrarchy of Lysanias. That the references to the "kingdom of Lysanais" are references to Abila, not to the much larger Iturien Empire, is pretty clear in Jewish Wars, but especially so in Antiquities.

In Jewish Wars: "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 Lysanias."[/b]

Josephus is explicit that the "kingdom of Lysanias" was not part of what August gave to Herod. Indeed, he specifically distinguishes it from Trachnoitis, which was actually a more significant part of the Iturean empire than Abila. Since we know that August gave to Herod most of the Kingdom once belonging to Lysanias the son of Ptolemy, Josephus is referring to another geo-political entity ruled by another Lysanias. Antiquities is quite explicit that this was Abila.

In Antiquities: "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 of Lysanias, and all that lay at Mount Libanus, he bestowed them upon him, as out of his own territories."

Josephus refers to two sets of grants to Agrippa. First, "all that country over which Herod" had reigned. This included the parts of the Iturien Kingdom that Caesar had previously given to Herod. These were given 'as due his family." Second, Claudius gave to Agrippa new lands that were not controlled by his family. Included in this is "Abila of Lysanias." So, the "kingdom of Lysanias" is limited to Abila. And it is not the Iturean Empire established by Ptolemy and lost by his son Lysanias.

The Catholic Encyclopedia sums up the conclusion:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm#VII

Finally, it seems remote that Luke would have added a reference to Lysanias merely to "boost" his historical details. He had already nailed four of the five leaders in that sentence accurately by name, place, and time. It seems he had some reason we just do not know, though I find it perhaps significant that many scholars have theorized a connection between Syria and the author of Luke/Acts.