spin

You shouldn't go round and round so much. Deal with the issues, rather than trying to sneak around them with purely rhetorical responses.

100% pure and perfect! 100% pure denial.



It must be hard to live trying to prove things to be inherently right when the manuscripts were written and transmitted by humans.

...Pure rhetoric like this. An empty cliche is better than no response!?

Which claims? Quirinius? Lysanias? the Lk v. Mt genealogies? the Lk v. Mt birth narratives?

Claims vaporized?

One claimed accurate date, the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. Had it been the 13th or 20th year, the result would have been the same. Some accuracy. The error tolerances with Herod Antipas and Philip are enormous. Lysanias is simply fifty years out. So let's invent another Lysanias.

The singular example of claimed accuracy you are lauding is par for the course in much of Tacitus, two consuls for a specific year, emperor, cabinet ministers, members of the imperial family, Parthian king, generals, provincial officials, all part of the fabric of the narrative. And praxeus gets hot and bothered with a lone example of accuracy in Luke. Well, you gotta make the most of what little you've got. And that's not much.


spin

Steven Avery

Issues ? Above I did go into the gymnasium at Pergamum and it turns
out that you accepted a Art Bulletin presumption without real evidence.
My conjecture is that you were aware of this problem even when you
posted the original claim.

Ultimately the single biggest issue is Luke's fine historicity (e.g. ala Ramsey). And the pattern of folks claiming he was wrong and then it being refuted as archaeology and further studies confirm Luke. And Luke's properly and accurately linking six different items together, a very unusual and striking historical exposition and one that indicates a writer very aware of the factual material.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin The error tolerances with Herod Antipas and Philip are enormous..

For those who don't know spin-speak he is not
asserting there is an error or an imprecision.

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

spin

Yup, issues. You don't like the Grether reference which goes in hand with Fikret Yugel's comment, right? Otherwise, why avoid it?

This thread is about one Lysanias and the lack of evidence for another. Please refer back to the OP and try to deal with the issues.

Errors with Quirinius, with Lysanias, and conflicts with the genealogy and with the birth narrative itself. "[F]ine historicity" is typical smoke dream. What you need once again, and once again you are devoid of, is evidence, evidence for a second Lysanias.

Unfortunately, despite all the words you haven't contributed anything useful to this thread. :wave:


spin

Clivedurdle

May I strongly recommend Umberto Eco Baudolino (or via: amazon.co.uk) and a certain discussion about Ezekiel measuring the temple and the rabbinical conclusion?

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

JoeWallack

JW:
Sometimes what is meant by the current usage of a word by an Author can be partially determined by how that author has previously used that word, especially in the same writing and especially in the immediately pre-ceding (pun intended) usage.

I Am now going to introduce into Spin's summary some previous uses of "Abila" and "Lysanias" by Josephus until we are Spin-ozang with Textual Criticism:


Chalkis (Iturea) part of Trachonitis, Abila included

Ptolemy---------circa 85 BCE---Ruler
causes trouble to Damascus
64 BCE loses (coastal) territory to Pompey

--------------------------?? ---Tetrarch

Lysanias----Son------40 BCE---Tetrarch
Aids Antigonus

executed by Antony--36 BCE---property to Cleopatra

Zenodorus--Son-------30 BCE---Tetrarch, "leases"
house of Lysanias

Herod (Great)--------20 BCE---gift from Augustus

Philip-------Son----- 4 BCE---inherits the house of Lysanias

dies----------------34 CE----property held by Syria


LUKE-----------------29 CE
Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis
Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene


JW:
My emphasis and comments in Blue:

http://www.biblehelpsonline.com/jose...4.htm#Heading8

" The Polity Settled By Moses; And How He Disappeared From Among Mankind.

1. When forty years were completed, within thirty days, Moses gathered the congregation together near Jordan, where the city Abila now stands, a place full of"

This looks like the previous reference by Josephus to "Abila" which is a different city than the one in Chalkis.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant19.html

1. NOW when Claudius had taken out of the way all those soldiers whom he suspected, which he did immediately, he published an edict, and therein confirmed that kingdom to Agrippa which Caius 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 (17) of Lysanias, and all that lay at Mount Libanus, he bestowed them upon him, as out of his own territories.

Regarding "Abila of Lysanias" the "of Lysanias" distinguishes from the previously mentioned Abila and presumably refers to the geographical territory of Chalkis since Josephus has only previously mentioned one Lysanias, who was Tetrarch of Chalkis. There is also an Implication that what Claudius is granting here is something less than the full Tetrarchy of Chalkis that Lysanias had because different words are used to describe the specifics of what was granted than how Josephus previously referred to this territory.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant20.html

"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 Chalcis, when he had been governor thereof four years."

Abila looks to have been defined in the preceding usage as a geographic rather than principality term and Lysanias looks to have been defined in the preceding usage as referring to the Tetrarchy of the previously mentioned Lysanias.

Josephus' previous use of "he bestowed them upon him, as out of his own territories." in referring to "Abila of Lysanias" indicates that at the time this was granted to Agrippa it was Governed by Rome and not a second Lysanias.

With regards to Josephus than, "Luke's" Assertian that there was a second Lysanias who was Tetrarch of Abilene has the following problems:

1) Josephus never gives any background for a second Lysanias and no explanation of distinction, which we would expect if he meant a second one.

2) Josephus indicates that the offending territory was owned by Rome when it was given to Agrippa.

3) The geographical area of Abila and presumably nearby land by Mount Libanus is significantly less than the territory Josephus previously described for the related Tetrarchy and also seems too small to comprise anyone's Tetrarchy.

Herod (Agrippa)------37 CE----receives Philip's tetrarchy

--------------------41 CE----Gains Judea and Samaria,
Keeps Abila,
Cedes Chalkis (Iturea) to brother



Joseph

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

spin

I think it should be clear by now that, other than by means of arguments of the type "black is white because the bible says it's so", there is little reason to doubt that there was only one ruler called Lysanias in the area under investigation.

There have only ever really been two issues that could stretch this conclusion:

1. that Lysanias's name has been attached to Abila (and "Abilene", a descriptive term for the land around the town) and that connection was continued for at least 50 years after the death of Lysanias. However, beside the fact that Lysanias was involved in Judean politics when he supported the Hasmonean ruler Antigonus against Herod and thus would have been remembered for that aid, there were at least three towns by the name of Abila, so attaching the name of Lysanias to one of them made it clear which Abila was being referred to, a not uncommon event, as can be seen by the name of Paneas when Philip rebuilt it as Caesarea, or Caesarea Philippi as people referred to it to distinguish it from other towns named Caesarea.
2. that the inscription of Nymphaios mentioned the both Lysanias and the "august lords" (kuriwn sebastwn), and it was thought that this latter reference meant that the inscription must have been from the time of Tiberius who allowed the deification of Augustus and his wife, and thus put the inscription post 14CE, ie 50 years after the death of Lysanias of Chalkis and highly improbable, though if Nymphaios was only 25 when freed, he would have been possibly 75-80 when the inscription was made, which is not unreasonable. However, there is now enough evidence to suggest that the "august lords" could easily have been Augustus and Livia, as we have seen in a few earlier posts of mine such as the OP in this thread. Here is a coin from Smyrna dated circa 10BCE which shows Augustus and Livia with an inscription that includes the nice clear word "SEBASTWI":
   
   
   This date for Augustus and Livia being recognized and named as Sebastoi is only 26 years after the death of Lysanias, making the use of this inscription of little value here.

There seems to be no reason other than the lone Lucan mention for the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, which seems in itself to simply be an anachronism, and this is only a problem for the black-is-white crowd.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Richard Carrier, one who speaks with Authority, has indicated that "Luke" not only seems familiar with Josephus but may have used it as a source:

Luke and Josephus (2000)

For the offending Territory here it also appears that all of "Luke's" information is coming from or at least can be found in Josephus:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant17.html

[What Herod bequeathed - 4 BCE]

"1. AND now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind; for he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and granted the kingdom to Archclaus. He also gave Gaulonitis, and Trachonitis, and Paneas to Philip,"

Archelaus - Judea, Idumea and Samaria

(Herod) Antipas - Galilee and Perea

Philip - Trachonitis, Paneas and Gaulonitis.

[What Caesar confirmed 4 BCE]

"4. When Caesar had heard these pleadings, he dissolved the assembly; but a few days afterwards he appointed Archelaus, not indeed to be king of the whole country, but ethnarch of the one half of that which had been subject to Herod, and promised to give him the royal dignity hereafter, if he governed his part virtuously. But as for the other half, he divided it into two parts, and gave it to two other of Herod's sons, to Philip and to Antipas, that Antipas who disputed with Archelaus for the whole kingdom. Now to him it was that Peres and Galilee paid their tribute, which amounted annually to two hundred talents, (21) while Batanea, with Trachonitis, as well as Auranitis, with a certain part of what was called the House of Zenodorus, (22) paid the tribute of one hundred talents to Philip; but Idumea, and Judea, and the country of Samaria paid tribute to Archelaus, but had now a fourth part of that tribute taken off by the order of Caesar, who decreed them that mitigation, because they did not join in this revolt with the rest of the multitude. There were also certain of the cities which paid tribute to Archelaus: Strato's Tower and Sebaste, with Joppa and Jerusalem; for as to Gaza, and Gadara, and Hippos, they were Grecian cities, which Caesar separated from his government, and added them to the province of Syria. Now the tribute-money that came to Archelaus every year from his own dominions amounted to six hundred talents."

Archelaus - Judea, Idumea and Samaria

(Herod) Antipas - Galilee and Peres

Philip - "a certain part of what was called the House of Zenodorus" (Abilene?)
Trachonitis, Bataneaas and Auranitis.

Compare to "Luke":

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

[Status around 29? CE]

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,"

Pilate - Judea (Archelaus removed)

Herod - Galilee

Philip - Ituraea and Trachonitis

Lysanias - Abilene

Everything above by "Luke" is consistent with Josephus except "Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene" which even though Josephus refers to "Abilene of Lysanias", seems to mean the area of Abilene that was part of the original Tetrarchy of the original Lysanias, based on the rest of Josephus. Thus, if "Luke" is in error here we can even see how the error might have happpened if it was unintentional. She may have just misunderstood Josephus' use of "Abilene of Lysanias".

Josephus' main focus though is on the Herodian family. A possible explanation to defend against error is that there was a second Lysanias who was Tetrarch of Abilene and Josephus gives no background because this Lysanias was not Herodian. The opportunity for the second Lysanias would have been when Caesar confirmed the will:

"Philip - "a certain part of what was called the House of Zenodorus" (Abilene?)
Trachonitis, Bataneaas and Auranitis."

The implication is that the Herodians did not receive all of the original Tetrarchy of the original Lysanias at this time. Josephus doesn't say who it went to at this time presumably because it was not a Herodian. Josephus has an implication though that ownership stayed with Rome because when Agrippa received "Abilene of Lysanias" Josephus indicates that it came from Rome.

Therefore, the window of opportunity for a second Lysanias of Abilene would be after Herod the Great died but before Agrippa received Abilene. This second Lysanias than would have had to lose this territory sometime before it was given to Agrippa.

A possible scenario but Unlikely.



Joseph

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

judge

But although you claim that Luke made an error, isn't it true that all you have established is that Luke may have made an error not that he did in fact make one?

spin

I think the data show an error, not a possible error.


spin

judge

But you dont seem to argue there is an error, just that there need not necessarily be two men named Lysanias.
The data (possibly) says there need not be two Lysynias's not that there were not.

I mean, you wouldn't put your house on it, no one would.