Roland

Luke pinpoints the birth of Jesus with the following reference to history:

1:3 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene--

I have read, however, that Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene during the time of Antony and Cleopatra in the 30's B.C. and that, in fact, Antony had him killed in 36. Does anyone know about this apparent discrepancy and is there a way that Bible literalists resolve the conflict?

Doctor X

I do not know, but it definitely conflicts with Mt's connection with Herod who died in 4 BCE.

--J.D.

spin

Not the date of birth, but of the baptism. However,

this is correct. What apparently seems to have happened is that the Lucan writer made a mistake, separating Abila (Abilene) which was at that time Philip's territory, but which had formerly belonged to Lysanias, assuming a list of Philip's territories such as

Ituraea, Trachonitis and Abila, the last of which had belonged to Lysanias

It is clearly an error of the gospel.


spin

Layman

Read where?

Kilgore Trout

I found a christian apologetic HERE

The usual apologetic mumbo-jumbo. If the bible appears to be wromg on a known historical person, such as Lysanias, then the bible must be talking about a different Lysanias since the bible is never wrong! Great circular argument. We know the bible is the word of god because there are no errors in it, and there are no errors in it because, if you find one, you must be wrong since the bible is the word of god and can't have any errors.:banghead:

Roland

Spin - Thanks for the correction.

Doctor X

Sure, take the passage out of context. If you bothered to read the passage in its complete form in the Spirit in which it was intended, then you would understand its meaning. I do not know why I bother with you atheists! How can you possibly understand something when you are not even prepared to receive it?

I will pray for you. . . .

Flees flying bricks. . . .

--J.D.

GakuseiDon

So who was tetrach of the period in question? How do you know that Luke isn't correct? Do you think he knew but deliberately put in the wrong name?

Here is an interesting article on the problem: http://www.members.aol.com/FlJosephu...Q.htm#Lysanias

Layman

There is no error that I can tell. Are you sure you are not being gullible here? Has anyone even bothered to cite to the evidence that proves Luke was wrong here?

Let's see it.

Peter Kirby

Here is some information...

Scott T. Carroll, The Anchor Bible Dictionary
LYSANIAS (PERSON) [Gk Lysanias (Λυσανιας)]. According to Luke, Lysanias was the tetrarch of Abilene when John the Baptist began his ministry (Luke 3:1). Lysanias is not mentioned again in the NT, but the name appears several times in the works of Josephus. A ruler named Lysanias in Josephus died in 36 b.c.e. This has led some scholars to argue that Luke made a chronological blunder by depending on Josephus for the name Lysanias and thereby naming an individual long dead as the tetrarch in ca. 28 c.e. The apparent problem is heightened because Luke gives every indication that his gospel was written with critical care (Luke 1:3). The evidence seems to suggest that there were two individuals named Lysanias who ruled in the same general area but at different times, supporting the accuracy of Luke’s account.
1. The earlier Lysanias mentioned by Josephus was the son of a certain Ptolemy (Joseph. Ant. 14.13.3; 15.4.1; JW 1.13.1). Lysanias, son of Ptolemy, ruled Chalcis in Lebanon (Joseph. Ant. 14.13.3). Later references to the name Lysanias in Josephus and Luke do not refer to the father, perhaps indicating a different individual. Because Chalcis was a larger territory than Abilene, it is likely that each was ruled by a separate person.
2. Thus it appears that another individual named Lysanias ruled over the district of Abilene. Josephus mentions that Gaius (Caligula) gave to Agrippa I all of the territory which had belonged to Herod the Great and added Abila to this territory (Joseph. Ant. 14.5.1; JW 2.11.5). Further inscriptional evidence may bear witness to a second Lysanias who ruled at a later date in the territory of Abilene. An inscription dated no later than 14 c.e., which states that it was the work of a certain Nymphaeus, a freedman of Lysanias, has been found near Abila. It appears that Josephus referred to two rulers named Lysanias but failed to distinguish one clearly from the other, whereas Luke mentioned only the later one.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX; (or via: amazon.co.uk), pp. 457-458
Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene. I.e. of a territory northwest of Damascus, surrounding the town of Abila at the southern end of the Anti-Lebanon range. But who was Lysanias? He is scarcely the Lysanias, son of Ptolemaeus, "king" of Chalcis in Coele-Syria; this Lysanias was put to death by M. Antony at the instigation of the Egyptian Cleopatra in 36 B.C. (see Josephus Ant. 15.4.1). Such a "gross chronological blunder" has at times been ascribed to Luke, but gratuitously. However, vague references in Josephus, referring to an "Abila, which belonged to Lysanias" (Ant. 19.5.1) or to "Abila, which had been the Lysanian tetrarchy" (Ant. 20.7.1), or to "the kingdom of Lysanias" (J.W. 2.11.5; 2.12.8) in contexts mentioning Chalcis or the territory given over to Herod Agrippa, sem to refer to a Lysanias different from the one put to death by M. Antony. This is also suggested by two fragmentary Greek inscriptions which mention a "Lysanias the tetrarch" (CIG 4521, 4523), one of which names still another Lysanias.

best,
Peter Kirby