judge

No problem with the methodology, obviously a helpful on, but is that methodology enough to insist on an error or only to suggest one?

Steven Avery

Hi spin,

It is a bit unclear here where the inscription ends and the Art Bulletin commentary begins. Do we have exactly what the inscription says. And perhaps more information ... such as epigraphic dating. Are there pictures or statues if no names ? Any assistance appreciated.

=========================

Related notes of interest:

"Under Tiberias a great part of the ceremonial dignity with which Augustus had surrounded himself passed to Livia, who as Julia Augusta stood at the head both of the gens Julia and of the cult of the deified Augustus... Livia occupied a position of unique importance in the state" - Grether p. 222

"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." - Gary Goldberg

The Encyclopedia Biblia references Shurer with the specific concept that :

"There was no plurality of Augusti until the time of Tiberius"

apparently with Livia taking the title of Augusta only after the death of Augustus.

There are really a few overlapping issues here. e.g. Were inscriptions made to Augustus and Livia as "august lords" during their lifetime like they were later made to Tiberias and Livia ? Were they even specifically made in that way after the death of Augustus ? Is this a phenomenon that is more likely (perhaps even widespread) for Tiberias and Livia as indicated by Schurer.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

JoeWallack

JW:
Regarding your chronology Spin, as that great 21st century philosopher, Borat, would say, "Uh nahhhce." He probably would really appreciate the green color attributed to the Jews also!

Let's add "Luke" now:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_3

1
"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene,"

And now let's send "Luke's" witness Back To The Future (God, I feel so Eusebian):

Chalkis (Iturea) part of Trachonitis, Abila included



Joseph

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

Steven Avery

Thanks, Joe. Now we are beginning to have a sensible timeline and readers can correct earlier inaccuracies or incompleteness. You might want to mention that Luke puts this in as part of an unusual and precise sixfold chronological synchronism. And maybe you should add Herod II as well.

Shalom,
Steven

spin

The only words actually cited from the inscription that I can vouch for were qeoi sebastoi.

I'm sure it won't come as a surprise now though that Augustus and Livia can appear on the same coin from Smyrna with the word sebastoi inscribed on it. Schuerer was writing in the 1880s and new evidence has emerged since then.

Grether writes that "The province of Asia, in 29 BC, obtained permission to build a temple at Pergamum to Roma and Augustus, and it seems likely that Livia was included in the cult early in its history, perhaps at its inception." (op.cit. p.230) Grether has shown how Livia had received various godly links both in Rome and in the east, a temple that was dedicated to her and Julia which was "doubtless very acceptable to Augustus", being referred to with the divine epithet euergetis and Qea Euergetis (p.231).

If therefore Livia receives divine attributes in the time of Augustus, while there is a tendency as pointed out by Grether that women received divine recognition along with their men in certain parts of the east, then there is no way to say who the reference of the Nymphaios inscription was to when it mentions kuriwn sebastwn, so there is no necessity that it refer to Tiberius and Livia. In the context of Lysanias, it seems very probable that it was Augustus and Livia, unless of course Nymphaios lived to be say 80 years of age.


spin

Steven Avery

Apparently we don't know anything about the inscription today other than the words that were seen in the wayback machine. The age of Nymphaios would vary depending the date of being freed (which is dependent partly on what Lysanias was the one granting freedom) and the date of the inscription.

Anyway I don't follow your logic above. Unless you are being circular and assuming what you are asserting. If the reference was to Tiberius and Livia and Luke is simply accurate in the sixfold chronological synchronism then Nymphaios would not be old unless the inscription could be late 1st century, which I believe is beyond the terminus ad quem.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

spin

The inscription is from a record of someone who traveled through Aliba circa 1750.

The only way the reference can really be to Tiberius and Livia is if one assumes that there was a second Lysanias. However, we know of one historical figure, referred to in Josephus, in coins and in inscriptions. There is nothing untoward in any of these if we work from the notion that Lysanias was one and the same. The only possible sign of a problem is the Lucan reference and we must accept that Luke is certainly not free of mistakes judging on the Quirinius property registration in 2:2. You should be happy that the writer got five out of six. It wasn't a contemporary account.


spin

Steven Avery

However few seriously thinks that Luke got the date of the census, "the taxing", wrong. That has its own set of issues, some interpretative, some grammatical, some historical, some across the Gospels. So on the verse itself it is either 5 of 6 or 6 of 6 and the first five are rather impressive. For both accuracy and precision. Then you add the huge depth of the supposed one mistake (50+ years) and the ambiguities in titles and lands as in Josephus and the dearth of solid historical evidence (e.g. Roman records) and a lot will simply depend on ones view of Luke .. even if there were not a single inscription of any type. Although both inscriptions do add a bit of insight.

Those who believe that Luke has a good track record in lands and countries and islands and titles will consider the argument here against his Lysanias reference as strained and weak. Those who are looking for causes of offense in Luke will grasp at this as some sort of unusual blunder in Lukan historicity.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

What scholarly census did you carry out to get this estimate of "few"?

It has always been very simple: treat Lk 2:2 as having a historical background, though erroneous located by Luke, or invent some way hide the problem.

So, we have the error regarding Quirinius, that of Lysanias and of course we should add the conflict of the genealogy of Jesus which with that of Matthew both conflict differently from the genealogy of Zerubbabel in Chronicles, so we have more errors there.

You need to look at the information before you wax lyrical. There is only one specific date. All the rest are lengthy periods which are intersected by it. Philip reigned for 37 years so it's not too hard to get an approximate date, same for Herod Antipas who reigned longer. Pontius Pilate was prefect for ten years. This is not particularly impressive at all. It's just rhetoric.

As has been pointed out, it requires for example one simple mistake in reading Josephus.

Who's looking for causes of offense? If you want to make a mistake into an offense then that's your problem. So Luke has a few mistakes. It doesn't seem to bother many christians -- only those who must have an inerrant book.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Most I will snip to avoid going round and round.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Who's looking for causes of offense? If you want to make a mistake into an offense then that's your problem. So Luke has a few mistakes. It doesn't seem to bother many christians -- only those who must have an inerrant book.

However Luke doesn't have any mistakes.

My encouragement to Christians that the Bible is 100% pure and prefect. We may have a dialog on that but generally skeptics don't have much to offer to that dialog other than their shop-worn claims of errancy like with Lysanias.

Some of the earlier anti-Luke claims vaporized, this one is flimsy from the get-go. In fact it confirms the incredible accuracy of Luke that this thin attempt is pulled out of the hat and becomes a cause celebre.

Shalom,
Steven