Talk:Lysanias

Clarify

I felt the article should make it clearer that Lysanias could be either one or two people, and that there is a debate about it. I've "been bold" and changed it, as it became easier than explaining here what I had in mind; but if anyone dislikes what I've done, please feel free to change it, or, if you disagree, to revert it.Swanny18 14:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

PS.I've just looked at the edit history: I can't believe how much red type is there; I only re-worked a couple of sentences! Swanny18 14:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved essay

Someone has written an essay to prove that the inscription cannot mean the biblical Lysanias. Interesting tho this is, I think that it fails the 'original research' criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rather it belongs on someone's web page, with a link to it on this one. If there are scholars who have expressed doubts, then a summary with reference would appropriately be inserted under the biblical Lysanias section?

I've also pruned and reorganised the page; it was rather repetitive, full of unreferenced assertions, and too concerned to argue for or against the identity of the two figures. I hope it helps and that I haven't committed the sin of POV either way. What I tried to do was let the data speak for itself. Roger Pearse 16:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Critique of the archaeology theory

Let's consider the archaeological evidence for this Lysanias. It is a fragment whose interpretation, it is claimed, talks of Tiberius and his mother Livia as "August lords", Κυριωι Σεβαστωι. The specific phrase in fact only apparently occurs in this fragment, so the evidence breaks down to the term Σεβαστωι. However, coins minted in Smyrna in 10 BCE show images of Augustus and Livia with the caption Σεβαστωι Σμυρναιωι, the "Smyrnean Augusti", ie Augustus and Livia were referred to as Σεβαστωι in 10 BCE, so the fragment could easily refer to a period circa 10 BCE. We also know that during the life of Augustus, a reference to him and his wife as the Θεωι Σεβαστωι, "August gods", was included in the mysteries of Demeter at Ephesus. This means there is no reason to believe that the term Σεβαστωι should be restricted to the time of Tiberius or later, so Nymphaeus, the freedman of Aetus, if the inscription dated to circa 10 BCE, could easily have known of a street that the historically known Lysanias established less than thirty years earlier.

That being the case, the temple inscription is of no use for dating the Lysanias it mentions to a time other than that of the Lysanias known from history. Josephus mentioning the kingdom of Lysanias regarding properties gifted by Caligula and Claudius is nothing strange, given the probable long lasting memory of this friend of the Jews. Such long lasting associations between people and places was not uncommon: one need only think of Caesarea Philippi, named after the tetrarch Philip II who died in 34 CE, yet preserved in the New Testament.

The only issue left to be dealt with is the reference in Luke to a Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene, at a time when Philip II was tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis according to the gospel of Luke. It is interesting that Iturea once contained Abilene, though it may have been separated out in one of the various land redistributions.

The issue cannot be resolved due to insufficient evidence to support this second Lysanias, though on face value it would seem difficult for the gospel account to reflect history. It is unlikely that an otherwise unheard of Lysanias of the same name as a well known ruler appeared 60 years later.

References

Returning Lysanias to history

The editor who has removed evidence from this entry seems more interested in apologetics than in getting at the history of the matter. The attempt to put the figure mentioned in Luke on the same level as the verified Lysanias shows no historical methodology. Repetition of errors does not make the error any more correct. The conjectures on the fragment from Abila mentioning Lysanias has been shown to be baseless from the coin evidence cited in the article. Removing it only seems to show a desire to hid facts. If you cannot check the evidence leave it alone. F.F. Bruce is a Christian text scholar and apologist who shows no interest in history. He has no place in an article with pretensions of history. --Doktorspin (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

These comments are rather strange. I didn't remove any evidence from the article; if there was anything which was like that, I kept it! What I removed was unreferenced POV. Complaining that material from Luke is "not historical" is your opinion. My own opinion is that the question is irrelevant to this article, which is about Lysanias. The two sources we have are Josephus and Luke, and, without offering any judgement, I listed them. Bias against F.F.Bruce is irrelevant; those references were there already, and I simply made them references. Since he was a published scholar, that seems fair. You have already stated your intention to "infidelize" the article. Please don't do this. Instead, why not discuss your edits, one by one, and reach consensus? Roger Pearse 22:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

• I have this page on my watchlist - please keep discussion here.
  

We're not acquainted; would you perhaps introduce yourself? Roger Pearse 22:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Doktorspin
  

1. When I went to http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/augustus/i.html, I didn't see a coin such as you described to support Augustus Livia = Augusti. Please update the link.
   

The coin reference on the page is RPC 2466. The text is

Augustus & Livia Æ21 of Ionia, Smyrna. Leontiskos Hippomedontos, magistrate, ca 10 BC. SEBASTWI ZMURNAIWN, jugate heads right of Augustus, laureate and Livia, draped / LEONTISKOS IPPOMEDONTOS, Aphrodite Stratonicis standing facing, holding scepter & Nike, dove in right field. BMC 255, SNG Copenhagen 1334. --Doktorspin (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if i'm wrong spin, but isn't SEBASTWI the dative *singular*? Shouldn't it instead read SEBASTOIS? - MrSeanzilla (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Your first cite of Wildwinds isn't supportable ("you should be able to find one"). You need to find a specific example that can be examined for veracity, and cite it with "Retrieved on XXXX date and time."
   
2. If Wildwinds is really that variable (i.e. you can't count on a cite staying up for any length of time), you should try to find other sources. Using Wildwinds not only opens your cites to later challenge if the cite goes down, but also borders dangerously close to WP:SYNTHESIS (to cite coins as evidence rather than historians).

It's not that it will go down, but that it has a turnover of coins so although I know that the coins are there -- there are about four for each of the figures mentioned --, I'm not sure of the stability of a single coin, in that if it is sold, it may be removed, though there will be others. --Doktorspin (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Roger Pearse
  

1. Per http://www.worldinvisible.com, Bruce does come across as an apologist. That doesn't mean he should be excluded altogether, but it does indicate his reliability is open to question unless backed by neutral sources. Doktorspin seems to concur in this regard; I haven't seen him remove anything based on Bruce. Please provide examples if he has, and I'll take a look.
   

I removed a reference to Bruce, fn #4, and replaced it with a journal reference, as well as reworded what I contended was tendentious information.

I should note that Roger Pierce considers the wording "Lysanias in history" as a section title instead of "Lysanias in Josephus" is tendentious. --Doktorspin (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I didn't introduce F.F.Bruce as an authority; I found him given as the authority for various statements, so made that explicit. I think that he *is* an authority, but the book is question is not one of his more scholarly works. I don't see any reason to remove a reference to an online source, tho. More than happy to have a second source. Roger Pearse 22:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Stylistically, Doktorspin's wording is cleaner and easier to follow. On sentences where the meaning is not in dispute, you should probably defer to his wording.
   
2. Please note that putting line breaks after every sentence is not a particularly good way to format a page.
   

arimareiji (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Doktorspin - the instability of a unique URL that someone can look at immediately, rather than having to search around, was what I referred to. If you don't have a unique URL that immediately shows the information you're referring to, it has very little value as a cite. This would be true for both of the Wildwinds cites.

Also, could you please provide a link to the diff you're referring to? (The one in which you replaced a reference to Bruce)

It's dated 12:17, 8 November 2008 [3], and is found immediately above "line 58". --Doktorspin (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I can't agree that "Lysanias in history" is tendentious. Josephus is considered a historian by neutral sources, and there are other references to Lysanias archaeologically and historically. Luke is not considered a historian by neutral sources, AFAIK. I don't see the need to contrast the two sections, but if they should be contrasted the current wording is the correct one. arimareiji (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To label Luke as "not history" seems to be a classic POV position, tho. Do we need to do that? Does everyone in the world agree with this position? We know that they do not, and that it introduces religious argument. It seems to me like a classic bit of religious POV, and, as such, best avoided. It's not an issue concerning Lysanias, after all. From our point of view, we have two ancient sources, plus some bits of archaeology. Why not just list them, without expressing an *opinion* on either? (We could, of course, add referenced statements by scholars on the subject; but wouldn't such discussion best be placed in some other Wikipedia article anyway?) Roger Pearse 22:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. And while we're at it, we should start listing everything as if there weren't an opposing consensus by non-religious scholars. After all, not everyone has to agree, right? So let's start listing the geological age of the Earth as 4400 years, asserting that it's flat and that the Sun revolves around the Earth... oh, wait. That's flatly against Wikipedia policy. (For reference, that was the style of argument known as reductio ad absurdum, and I wasn't serious.)

Likewise, no one has the inherent right to say their religious beliefs outweigh documented historical fact. Luke's high value to biblical scholars and historians does not make him a neutral historian.

Perceived lack of agreement with your religious beliefs does not mean that I or anyone else is "POV" to your "NPOV." As you could have already seen from earlier in this thread, I'll challenge anyone - religious or nonreligious - if their edits don't meet Wikipedia criteria.

If you two could try to sharpen each other's arguments ("as iron sharpens iron") by requiring rigorous neutral sourcing and checking up on each other's sources, this article would certainly benefit. arimareiji (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. What I've tried to do is to remove unsourced assertions, and to bear in mind the "no original research" criterion. I'd certainly welcome any edits that follow Wikipedia criteria, and improve the article, whoever writes them.

Now I see that you think that I am trying to introduce a religious belief here? Actually, to me, it looks as if YOU are! :-) (And Spin has already made it clear elsewhere that he is editing for no other reason than animosity to the Christians). But what I'm trying to do is to suggest that we should not introduce our own opinions, valid or otherwise. Let the data speak.

I reasoned that if we use the labels "Lysanias in Josephus" and "Lysanias in Luke", that involves expressing no opinion about either. It's just a statement of fact. Can we agree thus far?

But to use the labels "Lysanias in historical sources" and "Lysanias in Luke" involves the assertion "Luke is not a source from which we can obtain historical information" or something like that. Now is that a value-neutral statement? Is it one agreed the world over, other than by some tiny handful? I do not think so. Surely that is a *religious* statement. It is a *controversial* statement. And... it is a discussion of subset of a subject -- the historical reliability of the NT -- which is not going to be relevant to this article, is very controversial, and liable to provoke arguments like this. I don't quite understand what is wrong with naming the sources, rather than this "Josephus good, Luke bad" stuff.

It may be that you wish to believe that Luke contains no historical information? -- I don't know. (Frankly I suspect even the memoirs of that old faker L. Ron Hubbard contain *some* historical information, willy nilly, if only that rich frauds owned yachts in the 20th century). But I don't share this view, as someone more than a little interested in ancient history. I doubt any professional ancient historian shares that view, although I suppose there might be some (all atheists, by a curious coincidence, I suspect). Most people on this planet, you know, don't share this view. Why? Well, it's a RELIGIOUS view, that Luke is unhistorical, and one held by a minority. Thus if we MUST insert this issue, we insert POV, unless we insert named and referenced opinions. Why do it? Does it add value to the article? Do you see what I'm getting at?

This is why I simply listed them by name. I expressed no opinion about the reliability of either, and offered no reference for any opinion on the reliability of either. Isn't that rather more NPOV than expressing an opinion either way? Just my thoughts, of course. Roger Pearse 01:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I love that you keep saying it's a religious viewpoint to view Luke as a religious writer rather than a neutral historian. Do you believe I'm a Muslim, or a Zoroastrian, or an adherent of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and am therefore trying to discredit your religion?

1. I'm not.
2. Disagreeing with your chosen intellectual viewpoint (based on your individual interpretation of a religion) doesn't mean someone is of a different religion. It doesn't even make them atheist or agnostic. It means they intellectually disagree with you, which IMO is actually the opposite of disagreeing about spiritual matters.
3. Whether one offhand reference in a religious book can be proven historically accurate or not, is not going to affect the salvation of even one soul. If anything, it's reminiscent of the Pharisees - who would quibble endlessly over fine points of religious law while ignoring the spirit.
4. I could be wrong, though. Let me know if someone ever comes forward for baptism and says that it's because they were so moved by the proof that Lysanias lived between 14 and 29 AD. arimareiji (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, someone has some religious issues to address here, I think!!! But I'm not interested in any of them. Luke and Josephus are ancient texts. That is indisputable, and as far as I think we should go. How we evaluate either (positively or negatively) seems to me off-topic for this page. I don't suggest that we should label Luke "neutral"; nor Josephus either. Let's not label either in any way; to do so is POV, and irrelevant to Lysanias. I suggest that we list the ancient evidence, without deciding what is "history" and what is "false religion". Roger Pearse (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

unclear logic

I've decided to accept some of the revisions, as I think Spin did improve my edits in some areas. One thing is quite unclear, tho. I have left this sentence, but it seems very unclear to me:

"However, Augustus and Livia together were referred to during their lifetimes as SEBASTWI, ie Augusti, so their is no reason to assume this fragment should be dated as late as the reign of Augustus."

But how is this relevant? The statement made is that "August lords" is a unique reference only to Tiberius and Livia (so F.F.Bruce, and referenced). But this is NOT the same as saying "Augusti"; so how is this idea that both Augustus and Livia were called Augusti relevant? If there is an argument here, it is not obvious what it is. Also... is this original research again? Whose opinion is this, that this is significant? Roger Pearse 22:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The term kurios in a non-Judeo-Christian context such as a public inscription has no religious connotation, no connotation of gods. The statement as presented about the phrase is kuriwi sebastwi and is based on the use of sebastwi, without reliance on kuriwi. What would be needed for the argument to have any basis for consideration would be the use of qewi sebastwi (q=theta), "august gods", though the phrase is used of Augustus and Livia in Anatolia. This material comes from published scholarly literature. Just look for example at the second footnote of the material you removed to here as "original research". --Doktorspin (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly kyrios is a generic term; 'lord'. But the argument to which this argument is responding is that "august lords" is a specific phrase, not otherwise attested. (Whether "august gods" is used earlier is not relevant, since this is not what the inscription contains). Whether it had some religious connotation... does this matter? So I do not see how "august <anything else>" can be a response to it. If I'm missing something, by all means make it clear to me.

But again... if this is your own argument, what is it doing in this article? It's original research. But if this argument is made in a published source, then I would suggest quoting the author and referencing it, as it would then be entirely appropriate to have it here (as an opinion, whether sound or not). Roger Pearse 01:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't understand: the position wasn't argued in the apologetic source. The fact that "august lords" is nowhere else attested repudiates the claim that is being made about it, as the claim is unsupportable. When you have some source that has no bias on the matter and that presents the research for example about the claim regarding "august lords" and not just states opinion, then perhaps I'll need a my-source-is-better-than-your-source. As is, the evidence is available for dealing with the opinions you and others have already cited. --Doktorspin (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Lysanias was cousin of Antigonus

In the article, it is asserted that Lysanias was cousin of Antigonus. I find the concept persuasive but I am curious what the logic or citation might be. Reading the relevant portions of Josephus could lead to that conclusion but I haven't read such a conclusion, stated in so many words, in any source other than this Wikipedia article.

Hippodras (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible Luke's Lysanias the same as Philip the Tetrarch?

Philip was given ruler-ship of some of the land Ptolemy and Lysanias ruled. We don't know much about Cleopatra of Jerusalem, maybe she was a daughter of Lysanias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.176.92 (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lysanias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109230414/http://worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc07.htm to http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc07.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007012947/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Lysanias to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Lysanias

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)