ABILENE ('Agic?wivh, Luke iii. 1), the district or territory which took its name from the chief town, Abila. Its situation is in some degree detemiinecl by that of the town; but its precise limits and ex tent remain unknown. Northward it must have reached beyond the Upper Barrada, in order to include Abila; and it is probable that its southern border may have extended to Mount Hermon (Jebel es-Sheikh). It seems to have included the eastern declivities of Anti-Libanus, and the fine valleys between its base and the hills which front the eastern plains. This is a very beautiful and fertile region, well wooded and watered by numerous springs from Anti-Libanus. It also affords fine pastures; and in most respects contrasts with the stern and barren western slopes of Anti-Libanus.
This territory had been governed as a tetrarchate by Lysanias, son of Ptolemy and grandson of Men nmus (Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 13, 3), but he was put to death, B.c. 36, through the intrigues of Cleo patra, who then took possession of the province (Antiq. xv. 4, 1). After her death it fell to Augustus, who rented it out to one Zenodorus; but as he did not keep it clear of robbers, it was taken from him, and given to Herod the Great (Antiq. xv. so, i; Bell. Jim: i. 20, 4). At his death, a part (the southern, doubtless) of the territory was added to Tmchonitis and Iturwa, to form a tetrarchy for his son Philip; but by far the larger portion, including the city of Abila, was then, or shortly afterwards, bestowed on another Lysanias, men tioned by Luke (iii. 1), who is supposed to have been a descendant of the former Lysanias, but who is nowhere mentioned by Josephus. Indeed, nothing is said by him or any other profane writer of this part of Abilene until about ten years after the time referred to by Luke, when the emperor Caligula gave it to Agrippa I. as `the tetrarchy of Lysanias. (Joseph. Antig. xviii. 6, io), to whom it was after wards confirmed by Claudius. At his death it was
included in that part of his possessions which went to his son Agrippa IL This explanation (which we owe to the acuteness and research of Winer), as to the division of Abilene between Lysanias and Philip, removes the apparent discrepancy in Luke, who calls Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene at the very time that, according to Josephus, (a part of) Abilene was in the possession of Philip (See 7 S. Literature, July 1853). [` There is no evidence that a part of the territory of the older Lysanias had not remained in his family Now, since Abila is first named as belonging to the tetrarchy of a later Lysanias (Jos. Antiy. xix. 5, 1), and since the king dom of the older Lysanias is nowhere called a tetrarchy, whilst the territory of the later Lysanias is so called, it must not be assumed that Josephus, when he mentions ''ApiXav Auaaviov(Antig. xix. 5, 1), and speaks of a tetrarchy of Lysanias (Antly. xx. 7, I, comp. Bell. 7zid ii. 5; ii. 12, IS), denominates the district in question from that older Lysanias, but that before 790, when Caligula was in power, there existed a tetrarchy of a later ty sanias, to whom Abila without doubt belonged as a residence. In this case it is of no moment whether this Lysanias was a descendant or relation of the former or not (See Krebs Obss. p. Hz). Thus the notice of Luke is not proved an error by Josephus, but is corroborated by him (Meyer, Handbuch on the place. See also the full discus sion of this whole question by Wieseler in his Chranologi sche Synots e Der Vi er Evangeli en, pp. 174 '83). It may be added that Pococke found a Greek inscription at Nebi Abel, in which Lysanias is called Tetrarch of Abilene; and this appears also on a coin (Pococke, Travels, bk. ii. ch. 7; Bockh, Inscrip. 4521,