Was Bishop Pococke full of Pococke?

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Andrew,

That's the problem, "the Fifteenth year of Tiberius" would not have meant a thing to anybody in Greece or Italy either. Historical writers of the time simply did not date things that way.

Suetonius, in writing on the Life of Tiberius tells many things that Tiberius did during his reign. For example:

He abolished foreign cults, especially the Egyptian and the Jewish rites, compelling all who were addicted to such superstitions to burn their religious vestments and all their paraphernalia. Those of the Jews who were of military age he assigned to provinces of less healthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the army; the others of that same race or of similar beliefs he banished from the city, on pain of slavery for life if they did not obey. He banished the astrologers as well, but pardoned such as begged for indulgence and promised to give up their art.

There is nothing that tells which year of his reign Tiberius did this in. Only once does Suetonius tell a fact and connect it with the years of Tiberius' reign. He writes, " [38]For two whole years after becoming emperor he did not set foot outside the gates; after that he went nowhere except to the neighboring towns, at farthest to Antium, and even that very seldom and for a few days at a time." This is just to indicate how he disliked traveling. It is not dating anything by the years of his reign.

Cassius Dio, in writing about Tiberius in books 57 and 58 of his History, written in about 230 CE, only uses the names of consuls to date years. Only once does he mention an event and names the year of Tiberius' reign, but he quickly connects it to the names of the consuls for that time: "The twentieth year of Tiberius' reign was now at hand, but he did not enter the city, although he was sojourning in the vicinity of the Alban territory and Tusculum; the consuls, however, Lucius Bitellius and Fabius Persicus, celebrated the completion of his second ten-year period."

Since it appears that it was not the practice of historians of the First, Second or Early Third century to date events according to the years of Tiberius' reign, we are left with the puzzle of why Luke does it.

PhilosopherJay
We have to consider Luke's reference to the reign of Tiberius as odd. Who would have known or cared what happened in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign? it would make sense only in a book about the reign of Tiberius or the reign of emperors of that time. Since Luke was talking about events in Judea, it would have made sense for him to give the year of Pilate's reign or Archelaus' reign. It makes no sense for him to give the year of Tiberius' reign if he was trying to give a real historically useful time marker. It only makes sense as a faux (made-up, pretend) time marker.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

If Luke was writing to the Gentiles (was he?) then that might make sense, since the names of Pilate or Archelaus may not have meant anything to someone in Greece or Italy, for instance, but the name of Tiberius would.

[Solstice]

So you don't think that the author of Luke choose the 15th year of Tiberius because it aligned the Daniel/Ezra prophecies with the start of John or Jesus ministry?

[stephan happy huller]

What person writing history only dates one year?

Coins were dated to the reigns of Emperors. Since the date of the fifteenth of Tiberius was evidently incorrect or in dispute (cf. Eusebius and a date of 21 CE) the effort to choose a Roman date was probably associated with the corrector of the Marcionite gospel. Remember also that Clement assigned a single year to the ministry of Jesus. This cast a shadow over any tampering effort. Mark and Matthew have no date for the beginning of the ministry of Jesus but Luke does and as you mention it is associated with Roman regnal years - August 28 C.E. to August 29 C.E. why those years? Don't know but my guess it has something to do with the creation of the gospel of Luke which I have long suspected was timed to the persecutions of Christians after the revolt in Alexandria 171 - 175 CE (followed by the persecution of Christians in Gaul c. 176 - 177 CE).

29 + 49 = 78 CE + 49 = 127 CE + 49 176 CE - a very rough guess for date of the composition of Luke (absolute conjecture).

[andrewcriddle]

Christian apologists try to make up for Luke's ignorance and careless reading of Josephus by inventing a second Lysanias out of thin air who ruled Abilene in the Fifteenth year of Tiberias (circa 28). Even they have to admit that it would be difficult for a man killed in 34 B.C.E. to continue ruling a town for 60 more years. As proof of the second Lysanias they pull a rabbit out of a hat. They claim that a temple inscription discovered by a man named Pococke reads the name Lysanias Tetrarch along with a phrase that miraculously points to Tiberias being Emperor. Apparently Pococke also discovered a medal which also had the phrase "Lysanias Tetrarch" on it.

Looking up Richard Pococke, it turn that he was an Irish Bishop of Ossory and Meath who traveled through Egypt and "the Holy Land" from 1737-1742. I could not find any evidence that Pococke did anything more then copy the inscription and medal. I can't find evidence that any other person has seen either the inscription or the medal since Bishop Pococke claims to have seen it some 270 years
ago. Even in the 1700's, clergy must have been aware that Luke misunderstood and butchered the information in Josephus in his faux historical mode of writing. Pococke could have a hundred reasons for making up this inscription and medal out of thin air. For example, he may have written to the Pope afterwards, "Hey, Popi, I went to the Holy land and proved Luke a good historian, won't you make me a Bishop now?"Since generations of archaeologists with thousands of spades have been unable to discover anything to corroborate Bishop Pococke's "evidence," which he apparently found out in the open without any effort, isn't it about time we stopped granting evidential status to this hoax by Bishop Pococke and admitted that Luke was a faux historian who didn't know anything about Judea in the first half of the First century beyond what he cherry-picked out of Josephus . He even bungled the cherry-picking.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

I think there has been a little confusion about Pococke and Lysanius.

IIUC Pococke claimed to have discovered an inscription (now lost) referring to Lysanius.
Sestini discovered a coin/medal referring to "Lysanius Tetrarch". Both discoveries were later wrongly attributed to Pococke.

See Lysanius

Andrew Criddle

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks, are you sure that Sestini was not simply referring to the medal/coin discovered by Pococke?

Even if you are correct that Sestini is not referring to a coin by Pococke, we cannot take Sestini's knowledge of this coin as evidence of anything. The coin might very well be forged. Note this from "COINS, MEDALS, AND SEALS, ANCIENT AND MODERN.":EDITED BY W. C. PRIME, NEW YORK, HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS,FRANKLIN SQUARE. 1861.

In Padua, about 1540, two engravers, Jean Cavino and Alexander
Bassiano, were manufacturers of copies of coins and medals. They
pursued this honest line of business until they became so skillful
that their copies could not be detected from originals, and then
they began to sell them as genuine coins and medals. Hence
came the name Paduan, applied by collectors to any ancient coin
of modern make. Dervien, a Frenchman at Florence, Carteron
in Holland, and Congornier in France, were afterward celebrated
in the same line. The latter is stated to have confined his work
exclusively to coins of the Thirty Tyrants. The list of coiners
might be largely multiplied. Sestini published, in 1826, a cata-
logue of the forged coins of Becker, who died at Hamburg so late
as 1830. The number was immense of coins which he made from
imagination purely, without any historical authority. The result
of this is that there are now thousands of these coins in collections,
and offered for sale by collectors throughout the world. The
cheat has been carried so far that, in some of the cities of the
East, it is not uncommon for men to have supplies of these manu-
factured coins buried, and " excavate" them before the eyes of
travelers, to whom they at once sell them at enormous prices.

Sistini published his "Lettere e dissertazioni numismatiche" presumably containing the Lysanias coin in 1818. He published his book on forged coins by Becker in 1824. The picture of the coin in Sistini's 1818 book cannot assure us that it was not a forgery whether it was included in Sistini's 1824 book or not.

Here is Pococke's description of the stone he found in a church with the inscription on it, from his "A Discription of the East and Some Other Countries Vol II Part I."

I find there was a tradition fome years ago, that this church was built by St. Helena; though they fay the fame of almoft every old church that remains, but I could learn nothing of fuch a tradition now. I hoped for fome light as to the founder of it, from a Greek infcription which I faw on a ftone about four feet wide, and three deep, that was fixed in the infide of the church, but fome of it has been broke off; fo that the latter part of the lines are loft; it feems to confifts of verfes in honour of the builder, and to run in the firft perfon, beginning with the year, and afterwards makes mention of Lyfanias, tetrarch of Abilene ; and by the laft line it feems to be the devotion of a lady of the name of Eufebia. This infcription is a confirmation that Abila was near, which doubtlefs was the capital of the tetrarchy of Abilene, mentioned in fcripture as under the government of Lyfanias ' ; and probably from him this city was diftinguifhed by the name of Abila of Lyfanias =, on account of his being a benefaftor to it.

Being a stone in a Christian Church, one may conclude that Pacocke did see the stone and inscription. One may suppose that at some point Christians living near Abila wanted to include the one reference in the New Testament to Abila and to include Luke's reference to Lysanias Tetrach.

Pococke's misinterpretation of the stone is typical of the Christian relic imagination of the time. Christian artifacts created post 400 CE referencing New Testament events are recast into artifacts contemporary to New Testament events to celebrate New Testament events. Sadly these misinterpretations of these much later created relics are still being used by Christian scholars as proof of the historical nature of the imaginary events in the New Testament.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Solstice,

If Luke had this in mind, he would have used a real date reference. Because events were never associated with the years of Tiberius' reign, it would have been impossible for anybody to look up what happened in the 15th year of Tiberius' Reign. Basically, it is like the Star Dates in Star Trek. It relates to nothing and that is the advantage to Luke. Because it is not a year that references anything, one cannot say if anything happened or did not happen in that year. It is like saying "On Stardate 1313.5, Captain Kirk first encountered the Klingons." Luke is making a faux historical reference in a time referencing system never used by anyone. We should remember that Tiberius was only the second Emperor. The rule of Augustus was considered unique and nobody could have imagined that Rome would have emperors for the next 400 years. Tiberius could have been disposed at any time and the reign of emperors ended. There was no reason to count anything from the time of Tiberius' reign as co-emperor or sole emperor.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

So you don't think that the author of Luke choose the 15th year of Tiberius because it aligned the Daniel/Ezra prophecies with the start of John or Jesus ministry?

[PhilosopherJay]

What person writing history only dates one year?

Coins were dated to the reigns of Emperors. Since the date of the fifteenth of Tiberius was evidently incorrect or in dispute (cf. Eusebius and a date of 21 CE) the effort to choose a Roman date was probably associated with the corrector of the Marcionite gospel. Remember also that Clement assigned a single year to the ministry of Jesus. This cast a shadow over any tampering effort. Mark and Matthew have no date for the beginning of the ministry of Jesus but Luke does and as you mention it is associated with Roman regnal years - August 28 C.E. to August 29 C.E. why those years? Don't know but my guess it has something to do with the creation of the gospel of Luke which I have long suspected was timed to the persecutions of Christians after the revolt in Alexandria 171 - 175 CE (followed by the persecution of Christians in Gaul c. 176 - 177 CE).

29 + 49 = 78 CE + 49 = 127 CE + 49 176 CE - a very rough guess for date of the composition of Luke (absolute conjecture).

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi All,

Good news, you can buy a coin with Lysanias' picture on it from 40 BCE on Ebayhttp://www.ebay.com/itm/LYSANIAS-Kingdo ... 0412032316 for $863.
Actually the site has some pretty good information about the Lysanias controversy.

[Solstice]

it would have been impossible for anybody to look up what happened in the 15th year of Tiberius' Reign

But what if your agenda is to prove that Jesus came in fulfillment of the scriptures? "Luke" could have used the Canon of Kings which certainly existed at that time. Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Kings
The Canon of Kings was a dated list of kings used by ancient astronomers as a convenient means to date astronomical phenomena, such as eclipses. The Canon was preserved by the astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, and is thus known sometimes as Ptolemy's Canon. It is one of the most important bases for our knowledge of ancient chronology.
The Canon derives originally from Babylonian sources. Thus, it lists Kings of Babylon from 747 BC until the conquest of Babylon by the Persians in 539 BC, and then Persian kings from 538 to 332 BC. At this point, the Canon was continued by Greek astronomers in Alexandria, and lists the Macedonian kings from 331 to 305 BC, the Ptolemies from 304 BC to 30 BC, and the Roman Emperors from 29 BC to 160 AD.

Here's the Canon of Kings in pdf form:
http://adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.wan.io/OTC ... eKings.pdf

The author of Luke could have used this to find the 7th year of the reign of Artaxerges (Ezra 7) and count forward the 69 weeks of years (483 years) mentioned in Daniel, which lands right at the 15th year of Tiberius.

Plausible?

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Solstice,

I think we would need evidence first that Luke had even read "Daniel" or "Ezra" or "The Canon of Kings."

Besides this, Daniel reads “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place."

Daniel was making a prediction about what would happen in seventy weeks or 490 days later. One has to arbitrarily change the prediction to years. Nobody in ancient times or our times for that matter makes predictions for hundreds of years into the future. Nobody cares about the distant future. Tell people an alien spacecraft is going to land in 490 years and everybody will laugh at you; tell people an alien spacecraft will land in 490 days and you might get some believers. People passionately care about what is going to happen during the next few years, not hundreds of years from now.

It is also ridiculous to arbitrarily apply the beginning date of the prediction to a date in Ezra. Daniel allegedly lived in the time of Nebuchadnezzar 747–734 BC. Ezra lives in the time of Xerxes I: 485–465 BC (according to Josephus) or Artaxerxes I: 464–424 BC according to our later revised Hebrew scripture. The two characters, Daniel and Ezra are separated by 150-300 years.

According to the "Canon of kings" Artaxerxes' rule was 464–424 BC. The seventh year of his rule would be 458 B.C.E. According to the Canon of Kings, Tiberius ruled 15-36, so the fifteenth year would have been the year 29 C.E.. This would be a total of 458 + 28 years (there was no zero in ancient Egypt, so year 1 C.E. would have followed year 1 B.C.E.) or 486 years. Even when we arbitrarily take the date of David's prophecy to be years and arbitrary start it in the time of Ezra, we find using the Canon of Kings that the the date is 486 years and not 490 years. We can naturally make arbitrary adjustments to this and say that Luke knew that the Canon of Kings was wrong and counted from the time of Tiberius' co-regency with Augustus in 12 C.E., thus giving us 489 years and he expected his readers to somehow know that Jesus died a year later in the 490th year.

The really surprising thing would be if Luke had done all this creative work to get the prediction to line up and then hadn't mentioned it for some reason.

We should also note that the prediction does not say what will happen if the Jews don't repent in 490 days. Thus any event (such as the Babylonian exile) after that time can be arbitrary claimed to be the fulfillment of the prediction.

There is no reason to arbitrarily associate Luke with this nonsense. It would be more likely that later Christians, trying to find some secret meaning in what Luke had written would distort the Hebrew scriptures in this absurd fashion.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

it would have been impossible for anybody to look up what happened in the 15th year of Tiberius' Reign

Nobody made predicitons for hundreds of years in advance back then, just as nobody does now. People only care about and make predictions about the near the future. The Daniel prediction says

But what if your agenda is to prove that Jesus came in fulfillment of the scriptures? "Luke" could have used the Canon of Kings which certainly existed at that time. Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Kings
The Canon of Kings was a dated list of kings used by ancient astronomers as a convenient means to date astronomical phenomena, such as eclipses. The Canon was preserved by the astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, and is thus known sometimes as Ptolemy's Canon. It is one of the most important bases for our knowledge of ancient chronology.
The Canon derives originally from Babylonian sources. Thus, it lists Kings of Babylon from 747 BC until the conquest of Babylon by the Persians in 539 BC, and then Persian kings from 538 to 332 BC. At this point, the Canon was continued by Greek astronomers in Alexandria, and lists the Macedonian kings from 331 to 305 BC, the Ptolemies from 304 BC to 30 BC, and the Roman Emperors from 29 BC to 160 AD.

Here's the Canon of Kings in pdf form:
http://adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.wan.io/OTC ... eKings.pdf

The author of Luke could have used this to find the 7th year of the reign of Artaxerges (Ezra 7) and count forward the 69 weeks of years (483 years) mentioned in Daniel, which lands right at the 15th year of Tiberius.

Plausible?