Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by Irish1975 »

maryhelena wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 3:00 pm The gospel of Luke places Lysanias of Abilene with a list of rulers in the 15th year of Tiberius. Historically, Lysanias of Abilene ruled from around 40 b.c. to 33 b.c. It was not only Lysanias that ruled in 40 b.c. - Herod was made King by the Romans and Antigonus was King and High Priest in Judaea.

Lysanias

The father of Lysanias was Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus, who ruled the tetrarchy before him. Ptolemy was married to Alexandra, one of the sisters of Antigonus, and he helped his brother-in-law during the latter's successful attempt to claim the throne of Judea in 40 BC with the military support of the Parthians. Ptolemy had previously supported Antigonus's unsuccessful attempt to take the throne of Judea in 42 BC.

Josephus says in The Jewish War that Lysanias offered the Parthian satrap Barzapharnes a thousand talents and 500 women to bring Antigonus back and raise him to the throne, after deposing Hyrcanus though in his later work, the Jewish Antiquities, he says the offer was made by Antigonus. In 33 BCE Lysanias was put to death by Mark Antony for his Parthian sympathies, at the instigation of Cleopatra, who had eyes on his territories.

Coins from his reign indicate that he was "tetrarch and high priest"

How could it be the Lysanius from 40-33 BC, if Luke had intended to refer to someone ruling under Tiberius Caesar?
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 12018
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by Giuseppe »

The mention of Aretas is a serious obstacle to consider the entire kernel of the epistles as interpolated.

Can someone resume the Van Manen's point against the authenticity of Aretas?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2478
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by maryhelena »

Irish1975 wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 7:18 pm
maryhelena wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 3:00 pm The gospel of Luke places Lysanias of Abilene with a list of rulers in the 15th year of Tiberius. Historically, Lysanias of Abilene ruled from around 40 b.c. to 33 b.c. It was not only Lysanias that ruled in 40 b.c. - Herod was made King by the Romans and Antigonus was King and High Priest in Judaea.

Lysanias

The father of Lysanias was Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus, who ruled the tetrarchy before him. Ptolemy was married to Alexandra, one of the sisters of Antigonus, and he helped his brother-in-law during the latter's successful attempt to claim the throne of Judea in 40 BC with the military support of the Parthians. Ptolemy had previously supported Antigonus's unsuccessful attempt to take the throne of Judea in 42 BC.

Josephus says in The Jewish War that Lysanias offered the Parthian satrap Barzapharnes a thousand talents and 500 women to bring Antigonus back and raise him to the throne, after deposing Hyrcanus though in his later work, the Jewish Antiquities, he says the offer was made by Antigonus. In 33 BCE Lysanias was put to death by Mark Antony for his Parthian sympathies, at the instigation of Cleopatra, who had eyes on his territories.

Coins from his reign indicate that he was "tetrarch and high priest"

How could it be the Lysanius from 40-33 BC, if Luke had intended to refer to someone ruling under Tiberius Caesar?
But that would be an assumption - that Luke intended his reader to view his reference to Lysanias of Abilene as being alive in the 15th year of Tiberius.

The gLuke story places it's Jesus crucifixion around 30 c.e. (one passover) 30 c.e. is 70 years from 40 b.c. An important date in Hasmonean history - a history that involved Lysanias of Abilene. In effect, Luke ch.3 is referencing a 40 b.c. date that is relevant to his Jesus story.

Regarding Lysanias of Abilene:

Lysanias came to power in Chalkis on his father Ptolemy's death in 40BCE. Chalkis, sometimes referred to as Iturea and at the time of Philip also as part of Trachonitis, was a small realm north of Galilee to the south west of Damascus, an area which bordered on the Lebanon and included the city of Abila. He was long remembered by some Jews, as he harbored the Hasmonean prince Antigonus and supported him in his attempt to reclaim Judea in 40BCE.

History of the dynasty
Josephus provides a skeleton history of Chalkis from before the time of Pompey till the territory was given to Herod by Augustus. He tells us that the people of Damascus asked to take control of that city to avoid Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus [circa 85BCE], AJ 13.15.2 (13.392) and that Pompey devastated the territory of Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus [64BCE], AJ 14.3.2 (14.38-9). Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, who had collected an army and sought the favour of Fabius [a Roman official] with bribes was brought back to his country by Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus, because of their kinship, AJ 14.12.1 (14.297). Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus, died and his son Lysanias on succeeding to his throne made a pact of friendship with Antigonus [40BCE]. Cleopatra contrived to get Syria into her possession; so she had Antony kill Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, accusing him of his bringing the Parthians upon those countries [36BCE], AJ 15.4.1 (15.92). Zenodorus, according to Josephus, leased the house of Lysanias [circa 30CE], but there were complaints about Zenodorus's management of his subjects which led to his territories being given to King Herod [20BCE], AJ 15.10.1 (15.344-48).

Although Josephus is unaware of the relationship between Zenodorus and Lysanias but an inscription found at Heliodorus (CIG 4523) reads "Zenodorus son of the tetrarch Lysanias", providing a relationship that would make sense in that the territories of his father were given back to the family to manage on the death of Cleopatra.

Titles
The three rulers of Chalkis that we know of minted their own coins and the coins were engraved with similar inscriptions, all on the pattern, "(name) tetrarch and high priest": Ptolemy - "PTOLEMIOU TERARCOU KAI ARCIEREWS"; Lysanias - "LYSANIOU TERARCOU KAI ARCIEREWS"; and Zenodorus - "ZHNODWROU TERARCOU KAI ARCIEREWS". There can be no doubt therefore that Lysanias called himself a tetrarch and that Zenodorus was around at the right time in the right place to have been the son of Lysanias.

After the territory that belonged to Lysanias passed into the hands of Herod it was inherited by his son Philip who held it until he died in 34CE. Luke says that Philip was the tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis and Iturea was where one found Abila.

--o0o--

Luke 3:1
This should be sufficient to deal with the dynasty which ruled the area which included Abila, but the issue has been complicated by a reference to Lysanias in the gospel of Luke (3:1):
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate ruled Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene... (Abilene is an adjectival form of the place name Abila, located in the territory of Lysanias.)
This places Lysanias still alive 65 years after his death, so at least one other Lysanias has been proposed to justify the Lucan reference to this ruler in 29CE.

Augustus, Livia and the "August lords"
An inscription (CIG, 4521) found at Suk near Damascus (published in Revue Biblique in 1912 p. 533) reads as follows:

For the salvation of the Au[gust] lords
and of [all] their household,
Nymphaios freedman of Ea[gle]
Lysanias tetrarch esta[blished]
this street and other things.

August lords (kuriwn Sebastwn -- Sebastos is the translation given for Augustus in the East) was a reference to the Roman emperor and a royal woman. Some believe that they were Tiberius and his mother Livia, which would mean that the inscription comes from after 14CE and therefore, being at least 50 years after the fact, too late to be dealing with the known Lysanias, so there must have been another later Lysanias. However, this logic is falacious.

During the life of Augustus, a reference to him and his wife as the Qeoi Sebastoi was included in the mysteries of Demeter at Ephesus (1). While Augustus avoided anything that would link him to the divine in Italy, things were different in the East. According to G. Grether, "It was natural that the states of the East, especially those most accustomed to pay homage to the wives and daughters of their Hellenistic monarchs, should have a tendency to include the women of the families of great Romans in the honors which they conferred, and, when, under Augustus, this tendency centered on the imperial family, it was, of course Livia who most often received honors of a divine nature together with Augustus. As he was acclaimed a deity incarnate and identified with Zeus and other deities, so Livia was honored as a goddess and frequently represented with the attributes of deity, especially those of Hera and Demeter" (2). At the middle gymnasium at Pergamum an inscription was found 'dedicated to qeoi sebastoi, the "new gods" Augustus and Livia, alongside the traditional ones Hermes and Herakles' (3).

There is no reason therefore to look further than Augustus and his wife Livia in the reference to the "August lords" and this relieves us from the need of unnecessarily inventing another Lysanias, for if the inscription can simply be seen as having been made by the freedman in his old age a few decades after the death of the man who set him free, then there is no indication here of another Lysanias.

Josephus and another Lysanias?
There is just one more issue which is brought up in support of an extra Lysanias. The fact that Lysanias was long remembered by the Jews -- at least in the reports of Josephus -- has led to some confusion over his references to Lysanias. Josephus tells us, JW 2.11.5, about the lands received by Agrippa when he was made king:
Moreover, 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 Lysanius.
Some have tried to take this to mean that the kingdom of Lysanias was somehow a term that was recent at the time of the bestowal. However, the text is a little different from what this translation shows. It literally talks of a <kingdom "called 'of Lysanias'">, not of a <kingdom of Lysanias>. That it was "called the kingdom of Lysanias" and not that it was "kingdom of Lysanias" indicates only that the name of Lysanias had stuck to the place. It does not indicate some figure current at the time referred to, but a means of referring to the kingdom, and it had apparently been a longstanding reference. This is similar to another reference in Josephus, AJ 20.7.1:
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 Chalkis
In fact Trachonitis was part of Philip's inheritance from Herod (AJ 18.4.6, Lk 3:1). And once again the name of Lysanias the tetrarch is attached to Abila. As we've seen this is not strange, but it is also no indication that there was an extra Lysanias.

There is no reason to create an extra Lysanias. All the references including the inscriptions we have seen are easily explained as being to the same person -- all except one, the reference to Lysanias at the time of John the Baptist in Lk 3:1. That puts Luke out of sync with all the other voices. The simplest explanation for this is that the Lucan writer made a mistake. It happens, as has been seen with the Quirinius reference in dating the birth of Jesus.

Quote:
1. Am.J.Philol. 1946, Livia and the Roman Imperial Cult, Gertrude Grether, p.232
2. ibid. p.224
3. The Art Bulletin 1982, A Study in Architectural Iconography: Kaisersaal and the Imperial Cult, Fikret K. Yegül p.12

spin
https://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sh ... l?t=199928

Aretas III and Lysanias of Abilene were involved in Hasmonean history. Remove them both from relevance to the NT story and one has removed the root, the very backbone as it were, to what became early christian origins.


Luke. 1.1. Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

Luke a bad historian - or is it his readers who are misreading him ?

Methinks much more can be gained by considering the internal dating structure of the NT story than attempting to date the texts which contain the story. Dating texts can only indicate at such and such a time the story was known. Even if first mention of a relevant text was 200 years after the time of Tiberius and Pilate - that would not change the setting of the story. It's that setting, the context in which the story is set, that is what is important. And the story, with it's mention of Aretas III and Lysanias of Abilene identifies which dates in Hasmonean history are relevant to it's story - 63 b.c. and 40 to 37 b.c. (gJohn and the 3 passovers - Jesus crucifixion dates usually given as 30 and 33 c.e. - as Antigonus ruled from 40 b.c. to 37 b.c.)

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

(And no - for anyone interested - I don't equate the Roman executed Antigonus as being the gospel JC. I view Antigonus only as a historical model, as it were, for the gospel crucifixion story. The gospel story contains more than it's crucifixion story. But the story does have, as some writers point out, a zealot type underlay....)
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2478
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:22 pm The mention of Aretas is a serious obstacle to consider the entire kernel of the epistles as interpolated.

Can someone resume the Van Manen's point against the authenticity of Aretas?
Authenticity of the Aretas who had control of Damascus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aretas_III

Aretas III (/ˈærɪtəs/;[1] Nabataean Aramaic: 𐢊𐢛𐢞𐢞‎ Ḥārīṯat; Ancient Greek: Αρέτας Arétās) was king of the Nabataean kingdom from 87 to 62 BCE. Aretas ascended to the throne upon the death of his brother, Obodas I, in 87 BCE.[2] During his reign, he extended his kingdom to cover what now forms the northern area of Jordan, the south of Syria, and part of Saudi Arabia. Probably the greatest of Aretas' conquests was that of Damascus, which secured his country's place as a serious political power of its time. Nabataea reached its greatest territorial extent under Aretas' leadership.[3]

Conquest of Damascus

Damascus straddled the primary commercial route from the Mediterranean Sea to India and the Middle East. The city was taken from the loosening grip of the Seleucid Empire in 85 BCE by Aretas, who styled himself as Aretas Philhellen (Philhellen, "friend of the Greeks").[4] He ordered the mints of Damascus to produce the first silver Nabataean coins, in a Hellenic style and lettering his name in the Greek language instead of Nabataean Aramaic.[5] To further reinforce the new culture of the Nabataeans, Aretas endeavoured to bring architecture of Greek and Roman fashion to the Nabataean capital, Petra,[6] and to new settlements such as Humayma, including a 26.8 km aqueduct.[7] Nabataean rule of Damascus was interrupted in 72 BCE by a successful siege led by the Armenian king Tigranes II. Armenian rule of the city ended in 69 BCE when Tigranes' forces were pulled out to deal with a Roman attack on the Armenian capital, allowing Aretas to re-take the city.

Aretas III in Damascus from 85 b.c. - the time of Alexander Jannaeus.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus

From 83 - 80 BCE, Alexander continued campaigning in the east. The Nabataean king Aretas III managed to defeat Alexander in battle. However, Alexander continued expanding the Hasmonean kingdom into Transjordan. In Gaulanitis, he captured the cities of Golan, Seleucia, and Gamala. In Galaaditis, the cities of Pella, Dium, and Gerasa. Alexander had Pella destroyed because its inhabitants refused to Judaize.

Here is a thought:

Maybe what is going on here with the mention of Aretas III - NT writers could have modelled their literary Paul, Paul as a persecuting figure, on Alexander Jannaeus. They have transformed Alexander Jannaeus’s wars of expanding the Jewish territory to their literary Paul figure expanding the missionary work to Gentiles in foreign places. In a sense - updating Hasmonean history from nationalism to universalism.

Indicating that the gospel writers were not just using the OT for stories, for allusions for their own story - but also using stories, allusions, from Hasmonean history.

Why would one want to go the interpolation route when history is at ones elbow - or the click of a mouse takes one to a wonder of the modern world - Google. :)
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by Irish1975 »

@maryhelena—

What is confusing to me is that you seem to make both of the following assertions—

(1) that Luke committed a historian’s error (of one sort or another) in his reference to one Lysanius, tetrarch of Abilene (i.e. this bit you cited from Spin)…
There is no reason to create an extra Lysanias. All the references including the inscriptions we have seen are easily explained as being to the same person -- all except one, the reference to Lysanias at the time of John the Baptist in Lk 3:1. That puts Luke out of sync with all the other voices. The simplest explanation for this is that the Lucan writer made a mistake. It happens, as has been seen with the Quirinius reference in dating the birth of Jesus.
but also (2) that this verse does actually refer to the figure from Hasmonean history (sc. the only Lysanius known to Josephus)…
The gLuke story places it's Jesus crucifixion around 30 c.e. (one passover) 30 c.e. is 70 years from 40 b.c. An important date in Hasmonean history - a history that involved Lysanias of Abilene. In effect, Luke ch.3 is referencing a 40 b.c. date that is relevant to his Jesus story.
Both cannot be true. If Luke made an error, then whomever he intended to refer to is the only relevant personage in this verse, and not a guy from 70 years prior (i.e. not the time of the Baptist). On the other hand, if Luke had meant to refer to the earlier man, he cannot have committed an error.

So I hope you will clarify what you mean.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2478
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by maryhelena »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:38 pm @maryhelena—

What is confusing to me is that you seem to make both of the following assertions—

(1) that Luke committed a historian’s error (of one sort or another) in his reference to one Lysanius, tetrarch of Abilene (i.e. this bit you cited from Spin)…
There is no reason to create an extra Lysanias. All the references including the inscriptions we have seen are easily explained as being to the same person -- all except one, the reference to Lysanias at the time of John the Baptist in Lk 3:1. That puts Luke out of sync with all the other voices. The simplest explanation for this is that the Lucan writer made a mistake. It happens, as has been seen with the Quirinius reference in dating the birth of Jesus.


I used spin's long quote to highlight his point that there is no need to create a different Lysanias. I don't go along with spin's suggestion that Luke made an error. Apologies if that was not clear. I did raise the question... '' Luke a bad historian - or is it his readers who are misreading him.? .'" The point made by spin is that the Lysanias of Abilene mentioned by Luke is the Lysanias of Abilean of 40 b. c.


but also (2) that this verse does actually refer to the figure from Hasmonean history (sc. the only Lysanius known to Josephus)…
The gLuke story places it's Jesus crucifixion around 30 c.e. (one passover) 30 c.e. is 70 years from 40 b.c. An important date in Hasmonean history - a history that involved Lysanias of Abilene. In effect, Luke ch.3 is referencing a 40 b.c. date that is relevant to his Jesus story.
Both cannot be true. If Luke made an error, then whomever he intended to refer to is the only relevant personage in this verse, and not a guy from 70 years prior (i.e. not the time of the Baptist). On the other hand, if Luke had meant to refer to the earlier man, he cannot have committed an error.

So I hope you will clarify what you mean.
I support spin that the Lysanias of Abilean mentioned by Luke is the Lysanias of 40 b. c. I don't support spin's suggestion that Luke made a mistake. I suggest the mistake is on the reader's side not on Luke's side. Particularly as Luke's dating structure of the 15th year of Tiberius, and only giving his Jesus figure one Passover, has placed his narrative 70 years from 40 b. c.

Luke is referencing Hadmonean history from 40 b. c. Lysanias of Abilean was part of that history.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2478
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by maryhelena »

I only brought up Lysanias of Abilene as an example of keeping historical figures in their historical context. That NT writers place historical figures in contexts that on a face value reading appear to be in error should alert the reader to stop and pause.

To be quick to charge these writers with errors might be our loss, our mistake, not theirs. This approach to NT writers is in no small part due to interpreting the NT story as historical. In other words allowing interpretation to override history. As is the focus of this thread....an Aretas that controlled Damascus. NT interpretation being allowed to trump history.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by Irish1975 »

maryhelena wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:24 pm I support spin that the Lysanias of Abilean mentioned by Luke is the Lysanias of 40 b. c. I don't support spin's suggestion that Luke made a mistake. I suggest the mistake is on the reader's side not on Luke's side. Particularly as Luke's dating structure of the 15th year of Tiberius, and only giving his Jesus figure one Passover, has placed his narrative 70 years from 40 b. c.

Luke is referencing Hadmonean history from 40 b. c. Lysanias of Abilean was part of that history.
How does one coherently parse Luke 3:1, if one supposes that the author is referring (=intending to refer) to 2 different eras—both that of the Hasmonean Lysanius (~40 BCE), and that of Tiberius/Pontius Pilate/Herod Antipas/Philip (30 CE)?

It is clear from the text of canonical Luke that exactly one time is being introduced, so as to solemnify one single event: “In [such and such a year,] the word of God came to John in the wilderness.” First, there is a heap of temporal dependent clauses, joined together paratactically (and, and, but, etc), then the main clause: John began shouting in the desert. The temporal clauses serve to emphasize the historical specificity, and also cosmic importance, of the year when John began shouting in the desert (and thus cohering with the editorial concept of Luke-Acts as a whole).

Dependent paratactical clauses:
Ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος,
ἡγεμονεύοντος Ποντίου Πιλάτου τῆς Ἰουδαίας,
καὶ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Γαλιλαίας Ἡρῴδου,
Φιλίππου δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας,
καὶ Λυσανίου τῆς Ἀβιληνῆς τετρααρχοῦντος,
ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἅννα καὶ Καϊάφα,

Independent main clause:
ἐγένετο ῥῆμα θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν Ζαχαρίου υἱὸν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ.

How does your reading of Luke make sense of this entire, logically coherent statement of a single historical event? (I assume from what you have already said that you do not suppose that Tiberius, Pilate, etc were also from the earlier period.)
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2478
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by maryhelena »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:46 pm
maryhelena wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:24 pm I support spin that the Lysanias of Abilean mentioned by Luke is the Lysanias of 40 b. c. I don't support spin's suggestion that Luke made a mistake. I suggest the mistake is on the reader's side not on Luke's side. Particularly as Luke's dating structure of the 15th year of Tiberius, and only giving his Jesus figure one Passover, has placed his narrative 70 years from 40 b. c.

Luke is referencing Hadmonean history from 40 b. c. Lysanias of Abilean was part of that history.
How does one coherently parse Luke 3:1, if one supposes that the author is referring (=intending to refer) to 2 different eras—both that of the Hasmonean Lysanius (~40 BCE), and that of Tiberius/Pontius Pilate/Herod Antipas/Philip (30 CE)?

It is clear from the text of canonical Luke that exactly one time is being introduced, so as to solemnify one single event: “In [such and such a year,] the word of God came to John in the wilderness.” First, there is a heap of temporal dependent clauses, joined together paratactically (and, and, but, etc), then the main clause: John began shouting in the desert. The temporal clauses serve to emphasize the historical specificity, and also cosmic importance, of the year when John began shouting in the desert (and thus cohering with the editorial concept of Luke-Acts as a whole).
Luke has connected Lysanias of Abilene to Tiberius, Herod and Philip. History does not support a time frame in which these 4 rulers all ruled simultaneously. Options:

1) Luke made a historical mistake.
2) Therefore, a second, younger, Lysanias is proposed (as a second Aretas is proposed for Paul and Damascus.)
3) Stay with history that places Lysanias of Abilene in 40 b.c. - (stay with Aretas III who controlled Damascus until around 63/62 b.c.)

Lysanias of Abilene in 40 b.c. to Tiberius and a literary Jesus around 30 c.e. 70 years identified by Luke as being relevant to his Jesus story. Why would Luke pick on Lysanias of Abilene ? Did he not know of the connection between Lysanias and Hasmonean rulers ? Did he not know that Josephus only makes reference to one Lysanias of Abilene - the one in 40 bc. I suggest we take Luke as being very well aware of the importance of 40 b.c. for Hasmonean history - hence his reference to Lysanias of Abilene - a ruler executed by Marc Antony - as was the last King and High Priest of the Jews.

(Did Luke made another mistake when he placed his Jesus nativity in the time of Quirinius ? Those who think Luke made a mistake suggest, once again, sidelining history by proposing Quirinius was twice governor of Syria.)

Dependent paratactical clauses:
Ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος,
ἡγεμονεύοντος Ποντίου Πιλάτου τῆς Ἰουδαίας,
καὶ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Γαλιλαίας Ἡρῴδου,
Φιλίππου δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας,
καὶ Λυσανίου τῆς Ἀβιληνῆς τετρααρχοῦντος,
ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἅννα καὶ Καϊάφα,

Independent main clause:
ἐγένετο ῥῆμα θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν Ζαχαρίου υἱὸν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ.

How does your reading of Luke make sense of this entire, logically coherent statement of a single historical event? (I assume from what you have already said that you do not suppose that Tiberius, Pilate, etc were also from the earlier period.)
Words, however grammatically correct or used, do not trump a historical approach to Luke 3.1.

Luke has already, with placing his Jesus birth narrative around 6 c.e., indicated his interest in Hasmonean history. (70 years back to 63 b.c.) With Lysanias of Abilene he has done likewise - indicating that past Hasmonean history - this time from 40 b.c. - is relevant to the Jesus narrative he writes.

Luke ch.1. Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account...

From the beginning, says Luke - from 63 b.c. to 40 b.c. to the 15th year of Tiberius. If using the internal dating structure of gLuke - with his placing of his story elements 70 years from past Hasmonean history - was of no consequence - then by all means argue that both Quirinius and Lysanias of Abilene are of no consequence to the Jesus story. The problem is that both 63 b.c. and 40 b.c. are highly significant dates in Hasmonean history.

Quirinius, Lysanias of Abilene - and Aretas III - should be allowed their place in any research project into early christian history.

Why would one want to disregard Hasmonean history if one is endeavoring to research the roots of early christian history ? The early church fathers, in contrast, have nothing to offer but recycled stories from a Jesus narrative. We have the same Jesus narrative today - but we also have Google. We can allow our research to break the cycle of retelling the same story over and over again. Words, after all, only go so far - they don't reach down into the reason, the motivation, the history, that led the NT writers to create their Jesus story. History has to be put on the table - then one can begin to look for reflections, allusions, of that history within the NT stories. History should shine a light on the story - the story, our interpretations of that story, should not be allowed to trump history.
robert j
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Pauline epistles pre vs. post war

Post by robert j »

mlinssen wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:47 pm
Only Josephus attests to the 70 CE Temple destruction, and it's a folly. ...

There never was a war. Do you really think that these pathetic hillbillies without culture, architecture, great cities and stories, libraries, and anything else that makes a nation, were little more than nomads? The idea that the Roman army had any difficulty in overrunning this shit little country is hilarious
Certainly one might question the accuracy of conventional understandings of a late 1st century CE Roman-Jewish conflict.

But this invective tirade against a culture is gratuitous and bigoted.
Post Reply