Academic Discussion • Strauss, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Keim, Krenkel, and Schmiedel on Lysanias

A single exception occurs in the statement about Lysanias, whom Luke makes cotemporary with Antipas and Philip as tetrarch of Abilene. Josephus, it is true, speaks of an ᾿Αβίλα ἡ Λυσανίου, and mentions a Lysanias as governor of Chalcis in Lebanon, near to which lay the territory of Abila; so that the same Lysanias was probably master of the latter. But this Lysanias was, at the instigation of Cleopatra, put to death 34 years before the birth of Christ, and a second Lysanias is not mentioned either by Josephus or by any other writer on the period in question. Thus, not only is the time of his government earlier by 60 years than the 15th year of Tiberius, but it is also at issue with the other dates associated with it by Luke. Hence it has been conjectured that Luke here speaks of a younger Lysanias, the descendant of the earlier one, who possessed Abilene under Tiberius, but who, being less famous, is not noticed by Josephus.[6] We cannot indeed prove what Siiskind demands for the refutation of this hypothesis, namely, that had such a younger Lysanias existed, Josephus must have mentioned him ; yet that he had more than one inducement to do so, Paulus has satisfactorily shown. Especially, when in relation to the times of the first and second Agrippa he designates Abila, ἡ Λυσανίου, he must have been reminded that he had only treated of the elder Lysanias, and not at all of the younger, from whom, as the later ruler, the country must at that time have derived its second appellation.’ If, according to this, the younger Lysanias is but an historic fiction, the proposed alternative is but a philological one.6 For when it is said in the first place: Φιλίππου --- τετραρχοῦντος τῆς “Irovpaias, x. τ. X., and when it follows: καὶ Λυσανίου τῆς ᾿Αβιληνῆς τετραρχοῦντος: we cannot possibly understand from this, that Philip reigned also over the Abilene of Lysanias. For in that case the word τετραρχοῦντος ought not to have been repeated, and τῆς ought to have been placed before Lysanias, if the author wished to avoid misconstruction. The conclusion is therefore inevitable that the writer himself erred, and, from the circumstance that Abilene, even in recent times, was called, after the last ruler of the former dynasty, ἢ Λυσανίου, drew the inference that a monarch of that name was still existing; while, in fact, Abilene either belonged to Philip, or was immediately subject to the Romans.

[6] I here collect all the passages in Josephus relative to Lysanias, with the parallel passages in Dion Cassius. Antiq. xiii. xvi. 3, xiv. iii. 2, vii. 8.—Antiq. xv. iv. I. B. 1.1. xiii. 1 (Dio Cassius xlix. 32). Antiq. xv. x. 1-3. B. 1. i. xx. 4 (Dio Cass. liv. 9). Antiq. xvii. xi. 4. B. j. ii. vi. 3. Antiq. xviii. vi. 10. B. j. il, ix. 6 (Dio Cass. lix. 8). Antiq. xix.v. 1, B. j. il. .xi. 5.. Antiq. xx. v. 2, vii, x. B. j. ii. xii. 8.

It still cannot be considered entirely settled that Luke was free from error in this chronological determination. The historically known Lysanias was much older, being the son and successor of Ptolemaeus, son of Mennaeus, a ruler near Damascus, to whom Chalcis belonged. Lysanias was murdered in 34 B.C. at the instigation of Cleopatra (see Josephus, Antiquities XIV, 7, 4; XV, 4, 1; Jewish War I, 13, 1). However, his territories must have remained largely intact after his death. At least a certain Zenodorus is mentioned by Josephus (Antiquities XV, 10, 1) as the lessee of the estate of Lysanias. This Zenodorus's territory, although he may have also had his own possessions, included Trachonitis, which Augustus assigned to Herod the Great, and also Auranitis, which Zenodorus still wanted to sell at the end. The dominion of Lysanias lay between Trachonitis and Galilee (Josephus Antiquities XV, 10, 1-3). After the death of Herod, a certain estate of Zenodorus is also mentioned, as his son Philip received part of this region, namely Batanea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis (Josephus Antiquities XVIII, 12, 4; Jewish War II, 6, 3, concerning "the estate of Zenodorus near Jamnia"). In this region, the name of Lysanias later reappears when Emperor Gaius, upon his accession to the throne (37 A.D.), grants to Herod's grandson, Agrippa I, the tetrarchy of Philip, along with the title of king, and additionally bestows the tetrarchy of Lysanias (Antiquities XVIII, 6, 10; Jewish War II, 9, 6). Agrippa I was confirmed in this authority in 41 A.D. by Emperor Claudius, who also gave him as a hereditary possession the entire kingdom of his father, including Judea and Samaria, and as an additional gift from his own estates (ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ), the Abila of Lysanias along with the region of Lebanon—thus, besides the kingdom of Herod, he also received "the kingdom called that of Lysanias" (Josephus Antiquities XIX, 5, 1; Jewish War II, 11, 5). After Agrippa's death (44 A.D.), all these lands, except for Chalcis, which was given to his brother Herod, reverted to the emperor. It was only after the death of Herod (48 A.D.) that his son Agrippa II succeeded to the rule of Chalcis (Josephus Antiquities XX, 5, 2; Jewish War II, 12, 1), but in 52 A.D., he had to exchange it for the tetrarchy of Philip and Lysanias. See Josephus Antiquities XX, 7, 1, regarding Claudius: "He gave Agrippa the tetrarchy of Philip and Batanea, adding Trachonitis along with Abila, which had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias." In Jewish War II, 12, 8, it says: "He transferred Agrippa from the rule of Chalcis to a greater kingdom, giving him the tetrarchy that had belonged to Philip—this included Batanea, Trachonitis, and Gaulanitis; and he added the kingdom of Lysanias and the province of Varus." Since Chalcis had already belonged to the dominion of the older Lysanias but was given up by Agrippa II when he took possession of the tetrarchy or kingdom of Lysanias, Ebrard (ibid., p. 183 f.) jubilantly believes he has discovered the trace of a younger Lysanias, whose dominion included Abila, in Josephus. This argument could be further strengthened by the fact that Agrippa I had already received the tetrarchy of Lysanias from Gaius, and that Claudius could still later grant him the Abila of Lysanias. However, these rapidly forming and dissolving state boundaries, the "houses" of Lysanias and Zenodorus, are not sharply defined. We can particularly see how fluid the boundaries of these states, which depended on the whims of the emperors, were from the fact that Josephus mentions the regions of Batanea and Trachonitis, which Philip initially received (Josephus Antiquities XVII, 11, 4; Jewish War II, 7, 3; 12, 8), yet it is still distinguished from his tetrarchy (Josephus Antiquities XX, 7, 1). Compare the two parallel passages in Josephus, Antiquities XX, 7, 1, and Jewish War II, 12, 8. In the former, Trachonitis is at least included in the tetrarchy of Lysanias, while in the latter, along with Batanea and Gaulanitis, it belongs to the tetrarchy of Philip (which is distinct from the kingdom of Lysanias). Thus, the fluctuating information about Lysanias' kingdom allows for the assumption that he ruled over Chalcis, but apparently made Abila the capital of his territory. The inscription of a temple in the ancient Abila also seems to support this, as it refers to Lysanias as the tetrarch of Abilene (see Böckh, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, nos. 4521, 4523). Why should this inscription not refer to the historically known Lysanias? Wieseler (Chronological Synopsis, p. 183) wrongly argues against this based on the title of tetrarch, as can already be seen in Winer's article on 'Tetrarch.' Even Wieseler's latest discussion on Abilene in the Real-Encyclopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, edited by Herzog in 1853, does not convincingly prove the existence of a younger Lysanias, as evidenced by a reviewer in the Göttingen Scholars' Reports of 1853, issue 153, pp. 1527ff, who raised objections. While it cannot be entirely ruled out that a younger Lysanias ruled in Abila, which must have already been imperial property before 37 A.D., around 29 A.D., it is still most likely that Luke, having heard or read about a tetrarchy of Lysanias alongside that of Philip, concluded that there was a tetrarch Lysanias contemporary with Philip. Eusebius (Church History I, 9, 10) even makes this Lysanias of Luke a son and successor of Herod.

Soon after, he received a significant increase in power from Augustus, who, at the time when he brought Herod's sons by Mariamne, Alexander and Aristobulus, to Rome and into the imperial palace for their education, assigned him the northern regions bordering Galilee—Trachonitis, Batanea, and Hauranitis—along with part of Zenodorus' possessions, probably Abilene. Herod received the other part of Zenodorus' possessions around the Jordan River and the city of Paneas a few years later. This Zenodorus had leased the property of Lysanias from Antony, who had been killed at Cleopatra's instigation. Lysanias, a relative of the Hasmonean dynasty (see p. 219), had been the king in Chalcis and Abilene. The latter region had prospered greatly under him and became well known as Abila, or Abilene of Lysanias, to distinguish it from another city named Abila in Perea. Hence, the incorrect mention in the third Gospel (3:1), which names Lysanias as the tetrarch of Abilene at the same time as the sons of Herod, even though history records no mention of a younger Lysanias and the region of Abilene remained in the possession of the Herodians.

+ B. J. 2, 11, 5 : ßwyikdav tou Avffaviov \iyonkin]v Ant. 20, 7, 1 : Avaaviov li avTi] syeyupH Terpapxla. Soon after the deatli of L3'sanias Zenodorus appears as Farmer of the Ilouse (Land) of Lysanias, (the Letter of the lease is Eome : so also Eless) B. J. 1, 21, 4, Ant. 15, 10, 1 ff. Then he was obliged in obedience to the mandate of Oetavianus (24 b c.) to give up one after the other Trachou, Batanaa, Auranitis to Herod the G. Ant. 15, 10, 1 f. B. J. 1, 21, 4 : and after tlie death of Zenodorus (ab. 21 b.c.) Herod received in addition important pieces of his possession between Trach. and Galileo Ant. 15, 10, 3 cf. Vol. I. p. 233. Yet not all, for Soenius was ruling in Itursea (Ann. 12,'23) and Caligula (37) and Claudius (41) afterwards added to Agrippa the remaining nucleus of the A. Xsyonävi] ßaaiXtia (especially Abila) besides what his grandfather had bad Ant. 18, 6, 10. 19 5 1. 20, 7, 1. B. J. 2, 11, 5. Chalcis was got by Agrippa's brother Herod A.ü. 41 (19, 5, 1), then by Agrippa IL from 48-52 (20, 7, 1), afterwards by Aristobulus, probably Herod's son, (7, 7, 1). On grounds that are no grounds at all Winer, Hug, Kuhn, Krabbe, Mej^er, Tholuck, Wieseler (also A. Abilene) have defended the existence of a later Lysanias under Tiberius and Caligula. The most important point is : (1) that even afterwards mention is only made of"a former and so called dominion of Lysanias. (2) The Lysanias of the time of Antony is called now Tetrarch, now King, and accordingly is not to be separated from a so called Tetrarch of after times, cf. the above passages, also Ant. 14, 7, 4. 12, 1. 3, 1. 15 4 1. B. J. 1,13, 1. (3) To him along with Chalcis Abila too had already belonged Ant. 20, 7, 1. Thus it was not afterwards as is alleged (Meyer) that a specific Dynast of Abilene arose. (4) If there were such a later dynasty, it must by preference have been that of Soehimus (rex Itureorum Tac. loc. cit).

In third place among the regional rulers mentioned by Lucas is Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene. According to Holtzmann, this mention is also due to Josephus. Holtzmann interprets the title "Tetrarch" as meaning that Archelaus, who was succeeded by the Roman governor Herod Antipas, along with Philip and Lysanias, divided the inheritance of the great Herod among themselves. He found the term ἡ Λυσανίου τετραρχία in A. XVIII, 6, 10 and XX, 7, 1, where this land is given to Agrippa, and according to A. XIX, 5, 1. K. II, 11, 5, as an addition to his grandfather’s kingdom. This seemed to indicate original unity, and despite the latest attempts by Wieseler, Kneucker, and Godet, it seems to be a simpler mistake.

According to Schürer, the otherwise somewhat unmotivated mention of Lysanias of Abilene becomes understandable if one assumes that Lucas found the key to the previous information in this mention. If Lucas takes Agrippa II's rule as the given status quo, it makes sense that he would also mention the former ruler of a now Agrippa-held territory in his chronology. He simply wants to indicate who was ruling in the present regions of Agrippa at the time of John the Baptist's appearance.

The weakness of this assumption lies in the need for a Lysanias contemporaneous with Philip, who is supposed to be a descendant of the similarly named prince known from Josephus and Dio Cassius, who was executed in 36 AD by Antonius at Cleopatra's instigation. Despite all efforts, including those mentioned by Holtzmann, there has been no successful proof of the historical existence of this later Lysanias. The reasons that Schürer, who previously believed in the existence of this Lysanias based on Josephus alone, later brought forth to support his view are not sufficient to change the status of the question in his favor. Schürer initially claims that Josephus refers to Abila as Lysanias' tetrarchy, which would not be appropriate for the considerable territory of the elder Lysanias, of which the area of that city was only a small part. He also refers to an inscription found in Abila, which he believes dates no earlier than the time of Tiberius, according to which Nymphæus, a freedman of tetrarch Lysanias, built a road and erected a temple, which would have been unlikely to happen at least fifty years after Lysanias' death. Even if one accepts Schürer's initial remark as correct, one does not necessarily have to agree with his conclusion.

Josephus reports that Herod the Great received Trachon, Batanea, and Auranitis as a gift from Augustus because the tax collector of Lysanias' estate, a certain Zenodorus, dissatisfied with the tax revenues, plundered neighboring territories with the help of the bandits in Trachon, prompting the emperor to order the governor of Syria to put an end to this mischief and transfer the mentioned territory to Herod. When these three regions later became major parts of Philip's rule and the tetrarchy of Lysanias was incorporated into Agrippa I’s possession, and finally Abila appears under the latter designation, it is a reasonable assumption that the territory of Abila was the last remnant of the οἶκος τοῦ Λυσανίου, which was excluded from the gift to Herod and remained under direct Roman administration until Agrippa's accession. Since the name of Lysanias, its presumed re-founder, was inseparably attached to the city of Abila, it is easy to understand why the area associated with it was also named after him. It is also understandable that the designation "Tetrarchy," once used for neighboring principalities, was also applied to it to distinguish it from the city of Abila. It seems entirely inconceivable that Josephus, who undoubtedly referred to the possessions of the elder Lysanias, would expect his readers to understand Avoaviov τετραρχία or βασιλεία as referring to the principality of a later Lysanias, of whose existence he had given no hint.

The second reason given by Schürer is even less significant. Even assuming that the mentioned inscription should not be dated earlier than the reign of Tiberius: is it so remarkable that in that building-oriented era a man in older age might still build a road and erect a temple? Hieronymus Lotter built the Augustusburg Castle at the age of 69, Michelangelo began the construction of St. Peter's Basilica at 71, and Ferdinand de Lesseps was already in his late seventies when he undertook the greatest project of his life. Moreover, who says that Nymphæus was not born from a slave marriage and obtained freedom at a very young age, in which case he would not have needed to reach old age when he immortalized his name in the inscription?

Since the historical existence of a second tetrarch Lysanias remains in considerable doubt, Holtzmann’s view should be preferred over Schürer’s, as it provides a satisfactory solution to the difficulty associated with Lucas’ statement. We add that even the term tɛtqɑoxɛiv, which does not occur further in the New Testament and certainly not in the Septuagint, points to Josephus.

LYSANIAS (Aycanioy, Ti.WH) is mentioned in the NT only in Lk. 3:1, where he appears as tetrarch of ABILENE [g.v.] at the beginning of the Baptist's ministry. Outside of the NT we know of only one man of this name who ruled over this region; his rule commenced about 40 B.C., and in 36 B.C. he was executed by the triumvir Mark Antony at the instigation of Cleopatra (Jos. Art xv. 41, $ 92; 87]. 223, $ 440; Schiirer, G/V®) 1296, ET 1402) —thus a difference of more than sixty years, The question arises, accordingly, whether perhaps Lk. may not intend a younger Lysanias with regard to whom we possess no direct information, and whether it is possible to suppose that what is said in Lk. may be applicable to him though inapplicable to the older Lysanias.

The Lysanias of whom we know from secular history succeeded his father Ptolemy, who was the son of a 1. Extent of Certain Menneus ; this Ptolemy, accordsertitory of ing to Strabo (xvi. 210, p. 753), was lord pan ΕΥ̓͂ ΟΣ Ofthe ‘hill country of the Îturseans'—by yBAnlaS. sich we are to understand probably the southern Antilibanus (sce ISHMAEL, $ 4 [7]) along with Abila (west from Damascus)—and also of the plain of Massyas or Marsyas, which stretched between the Lebanon and Antilibanus ranges from Laodicea in the N. to Chalcis (Ptolemy's capital} in the S. ; and indeed it is probable that his territory came farther S. still, to the region of Paneas N. of Lake Merom er Semechonitis.

The apologists are not alone in maintaining the impossibility of this kingdom being designated as the tetrarchy of Abilene. Schurer (596/, 602; ETi. 23267) takes the same view, and assumes therefore a younger Lysanias, who in the Baptist's time was tetrarch of Abilene only. Schiirer himself affirms that ‘ Pompey destroyed the fortified places in Lebanon (Strabo xvi. 2:8, p. 755) and undoubtedly also curtailed the terri tory of Ptolemy in a way similar to that in which he dealt with the Jewish territory,’ ‘That the kingdom of Ptolemy was thereby reduced to the limits of Abilene alone must not, however, be assumed, for Ptolemy purchased immunity for his incursions from Pompey by the payment of a thousand talents (Jos. Ax# xiv. 82, $ 39).

in particular it is not probable that precisely Ptolemy's capital (Chalcis) was taken from him. Josephus, however (8.7 ἢ. 128, $ 247), expressly distinguishes this Chalcis from the ‘kingdom οἵ Lysanias' when he says that ἴῃ 53 A.p. Chalcis was taken from Agrippa II., in compensation fot which he received a greater kingdom which included the kingdom of Lysanius.

A notice in Josephus (4x2. xv.1013, $$ 343-345; 3603 27 1.204, $8 398-400) leads to the same result. Eeodbras had received, on payment of tribute, the former domain of Lysanias (ἐμεμίσθωτο τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Avgaviov); after Zenodorus' death (zo 8.c.) Augustus bestowed his territory upon Herod the Great =—Ulatha and Paneas to the N. of Lake Merom. These districts, therefore, would seem to have previously belonged to the dominion of Lysanias (Schurer, 1 599).

(3) If accordingly it is impossible to assign Abilene alone to the Lysanias vouched for by profane history we must put some other meaning upon the expression of Lk. unless we are to postulate a younger Lysanias. Krenkel (Josephus u. Lucas, 1894, p. 96 f.) seeks to explain the expression from Josephus.

It is stated by Josephus (Axr£. xv. 10.1, 88 343-345; 87 1. 20... 8.308.) that Augustus gave to Herod, while Zenodorus was still alive, Trachon, Batana:a, and ‘Auranitis. After the death of Herod în 4 n.c. these three territories along with a portion of the domain of Zenodorus fell to Herod's son Philip (σέ. xvii.114, Ε 3195 711.63, $ 95). This tetrarchy of Philip was, after his death în 34 A.D., incorporated with the province of Syria; but in 37 it was given to Agrippa 1, along with the ‘tetrarchy of Lysanias” (Jos. Amt. xviii. 610, 8 237) In #7 (ii. 115,8 215) Josephus makes the same statement, only with the expression ‘the so-called Zingdom of Lysanias' ἰβασιλείαν τὴν Λυσανίου καλουμένην. After the death of Agrippa I in 44 A.D. his territory passed under Roman control, But in 53 A.D., according to Josephus (Z/ii 123, $ 247), his son Agrippa IL obtained the former tetrarchy of Philip—i.e., Batanaea, Trachonitis, and Gaulanitis—with, in addition, the ‘kingdom of Lysanias' along with what Had formerly been the domain of a certain Varus. In An xx.7 1, 8 138, Josephus states it thus: he received the tetrarchy of Philip and Batanaea, and also Trachonitis with Abila. At this point Josephus adds that this last had formeriy been the tetrarchy of Lysanias (Λυσανίου δ᾽ αὔτη ἐγεγόνει rerpapyia). That this holds true of Abila only, not also of Trachonitis, follows from xix.5 1, $ 275 (᾿Αβίλαν τὴν Λυσανίοv).

Upon these data Krenkel bases the conjecture that Josephus does not mean to speak of Abila as the only possession of Lysanias, that he calls it the tetrarchy or kingdom of Lysanias simply and solely because it was the only part of the former dominions of Lysanias, which, instead of being assigned to another lord such as Herod the Great, Philip, or Agrippa I. and receiving a name from the new master, had since the death of Lysanias continued to be directly under Roman rule. This interpretation fits best the ‘Abila of Lysanias' (Αβίλαν τὴν Λυσανίου) ; in the other passages it is not the most obvious one. It would be more natural to interpret in another sense—that Abila alone had constituted the territory of Lysanias, —in that case, then, of a younger Lysanias. But Josephus never gives any indication of a younger Lysanias being known to him. His readers were bound to suppose him to mean the Lysanias who was executed in 36 B.C. When we look at the question from this point of view, accordingly, the simplest course would seem to be to conclude that Josephus intends this same Lysanias throughout, and that there was no younger Lysanias; therefore, that Krenkel's interpretation is not to be set aside as inadmissible.

(c) Coming now to Lk., Krenkel supposes him to have borrowed his expression from Josephus, but on the erroneous impression that Lysanias had survived and ruled to a period shortly before the granting of his tetrarchy to Agrippa I. and thus to the Baptist's time, As to Lk.'s acquaintance with the writings of Josephus, see Acts, $ 16, and THEUDAS. Even if Lk. was not acquainted with Josephus, however, it is still possible that he may be in error; he may have found and misunderstood the expression "tetrarchy of Lysanias," meaning the former tetrarchy of Lysanias, in some other source.

(4) In any case we need some explanation of Lk.'s mentioning Lysanias at all. Clearly his wish is to be as complete as possible at this important point of his narrative ; but Abilene was a very unimportant territory and Lysanias was not a Jewish ruler at all; if Lysanias was to be mentioned other neighbouring princes deserved equally well to be so also. The most likely suggestion is that Lk. starts from the condition of matters which subsisted down to the year 100 A.D., and thus approximately to the time when he was composing his book; Agrippa II., the last of the Jewish princes, possessed in addition to other territories Abilene also, and Lk, thus found himself called upon to say who it was that heid it in the Baptist's time. Whether he is indeed correct in giving a tetrarch Lysanias for this period must remain an open question. That he was mistaken cannot possibly be shown or even assumed without difficulty ; but neither can it be disproved. In no case can it be held to be impossible, on the alleged ground that such a mistake on his part were inconceivable. Not to speak of the mistake regarding Philip in this very verse (cf. ITUREA), the undeniable error in 3, 2— that there were two high priests at the same time—is so serious that, in comparison with it, that regarding Lysanias would seem quite natural, especially if Lk was depending on the unprecise mode of expression he found in Josephus or some other authority.

Dio Cassius calls the pre-Christian Lysanias ‘king of the Ituraans,' as also does Porphyry (ap. Eus. Chrom. Tit ed. Schòne, 1170), if we assume that here 2. Titles. οὐ ysanias' (Λυσανίου) ought to be read for ‘ Lysimachus' (Λυσιμάχου). It is illegitimate to infer from this, however, that the coins with the legend *Lysanias, tetrarch and chief priest’ (Λυσανίου τετράρχον καὶ ἀρχιερέως : Schiirer, 1598, n. 23) relate not to him but to a younger Lysanias. The coins bearing the legend ‘ Ptolemy tetrarch and chie[f priest}' {Πτολεμαίου τετράρχου dpyxfiepéws]) are without hesitation attributed to his father. In that case, however, it is very probable that the son also bore the same title. True, Ptolemy is nowhere designated ‘king’ as his son is. The expressions of Josephus are quite general—that he ‘was ruler' (δυναστεύων, Art. xiv.74, 8 125), or ‘bore sway® (ἐκράτει, B/i.92,$ 185). But the titles ‘tetrarch' and ‘king’ are not sharply distinguishcd. ‘Tetrarch' at that time and for many a day had lost its original meaning of ruler of a fourth part of a kingdom and had come to be applied quite generally to any ruler over a territory not too great, dependent on Rome (Schurer, i., 8 16, n. 12, 350-352; ET ii. 17, n. 12}. The writers of that period, however, often substitute for τ the title of ‘king' also, which strictly denotes a higher dignity. Even Josephus designates the territory of one and the same Lysanias partiy as a tetrarchy (rerpapyia) and partly as a kingdom (βασιλεία, 8 τό). In most quarters, therefore, no difficulty is found in identifying the pre-Christian Lysanias with the tetrarch of the inscription to be treated of in next section.

3. Inscriptions
The following inscription upon a tomb at Ba/albek (=Heliopolis) to the N. of Abila (C/G 4523) is of importance if the lacunae have been rightly filled up by Renan (Mission de Phénicie, 1864, p. 317-319, and more exhaustively in Mem. de l'Acad, des Inscr. et Belles Lettres, vol. 265 [1870]. pp. 70-79): ‘. . . daughter to Zenodorus [son of] Lysfanias t]etrarch and [to] Lysfanias . . . and t]he sons [and to LyJsanfias . . . and the sons in melmor}y [piously] erected (. . . ϑυγάτηρ Zyvodepy Avo[ariov τ]ετράρχου καὶ Avolavia . . . καὶ r]oîs υἱοῖς [καὶ] (Au)car[ia . . . καὶ τοῖ]ς υἱοῖς μνζήμ]ης χάριν [εὐσεβῶς] ἀνέθηκεν). Schuùrer and others deduce from this not only that the Zenodorus named above (8 τὰ and δ) was a son of the pre-Christian Lysanias, but also that younger members of his family also bore the name Lysanias. Krenkel considers this to have no point inasmuch as the inscription bestows the title of tetrarch only on the father of Zenodorus, but designates the other persons by their mere names without any addition. It remains a possibility, however, that one or more of them may have received the vitle of tetrarch only after the erection of this monument, which perhaps may have been set up soon after the death of Zenodorus (20 B.C.). Moreover Krenkel has confined himself, as he ought not to have done, to Schirer's reproduction of the inscription. Schùrer himself says that he is giving only the legible portions of it and takes no account of the lacune assumed by Renan. Just as the first-named Lysanias is more precisely designated as tetrarch, so Renan desiderates some more definite title for the second and for the third, EKrenkel is right, however, in so far as he contends that neither the second nor the third can have been designated tetrarch, otherwise the first Lysanias would have required some further addition —for example the name of his father—for distinction’s sake. In point of fact Renan conjectures only so much as this—that the second and the third Lysanias were distinguished by addition of the names of their fathers. The most important consideration, however, is that for both of them the name Lysanias itself rests upon pure conjecture, Renan himself says that in the second place, for example, the reading might quite as easily be Lysimachus or Lysias; and, in the third place, Brocchi, the only person who had seen this fragment of the inscription which has since disappeared, did not read *Lysan' (ATZAN) at all, but ‘ Dasan' (AAZAN).

(2) Another inscription (C/G 4521, cp Addenda în vol. ii.) relates that a freedman of the tetrarch Lysanias has constructed a road and built a temple ‘for the weal of the lords Augusti’ (ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν κυρίων Σε[βαστῶν] σωτηρίας). There was no plurality of Augusti (= Σεβαστοί) until the time of Tiberius, alongside of whom his mother Livia, after the death of the Emperor Octavianus Augustus {14 A.D.}, bore the title of Augusta (Tac. Arr. 18; Schirer, 1603, n. 37). Now it is by no means impossible that a freedman of the Lysanias who died in 36 B.C. should, fifty years afterwards, or more have made a road and built a temple, particularly if, as often enough happened, he had been emancipated as a child along with his parents. Thus neither does this inscription supply any decisive evidence in favour of the existence of a younger tetrarch Lysanias,

4. Literature
Wieseler; Chronol. Synop. d. vier Evangelien, 1843, pp. 174, 183, and Beitr. a Wurdgung der Evangelion, 1869, pp. 196-204; Renan, in Mem. Acad. Inscr. 26b, 1870, pp. 49-84, and especially Schürer, GJV, Beilage i. 600-603 (ET i. 2. 335 ff.) for the assumption of a younger Lysanias. On the other side, see Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1, § 40, 1835, PP. 310-313; Keim, Gesch. Jess von Nazara, 1 618 f. (ET ii. 384 f.) and Aus dem Uechristenthum, 1 (1878) 9-12, and especially Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas, 1894, pp. 95-98.