LYSANIAS (Avaavias) is mentioned by St. Luke, in chap. iii. 1, as tetrarch of Abilene on the eastern slope of the Anti-lebanon, near Damascus. Amidst the obscurity which surrounds this name, conjectures have been indulged in, two of which we will here notice. According to Eusebius (whom others have followed, such as Bede and Adri chomius, see Corn. a Lapid. LUC, 1), Lysa nias was a son of Herod the Great. This opinion (the untenableness of which is shewn by Valesius, on Euseb., Hist. Eccl., 9, and by Scaliger, Animadver. on Euseb. Chron., p. 178) has no other foundation than the fact that the evangelist mentions Lysanias with Herod Antipas and Philip ; we dismiss it, therefore, and proceed to notice another opinion which has excited more serious discussion, especially in recent times. Josephus (Antiy. xiv. 13. 3, and Bell. tta'. i. 13. 1) men tions a Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, the son of Mennieus ; and in other passag,es, also, he speaks of Abila of Lysanias' xix. 5. 1) and the tetrarchy of Lysanias' (xviii. 6. io), and, more fully still, of Abilene, the tetrarchy of lysanias' (xx. 7. i). Now Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, was put to death by Marcus Antonius at the instigation of Cleopatra (Joseph. xv. 4. 1; Dion. Cass., xlix. 32). This took place B. C. 34, or about sixty four years before the period which St. Luke refers to in the passage before us (iii. 1). To the older commentators, such as Casaubon (On Ba7-0121.11; Ann. X-XX1., A711711. 4)-, Scaliger Voc. cit.), and others (see Corn. a Lap. and Grotius, in /oc.), this dif ference of dates presented no difficulty. Allowing historical credit to St. Luke (on which subject see Dr. Mill, Pantheistic Princip., pt. ii. p. 16, seq.), no less than to Josephus, they at once concluded that two different princes of the same name, and possibly of the same family, were referred to by the two writers. (See also Kuinoel, on Luke iii. 1; Krebsius, Obserm, pp. o- 113 ; and Robinson, Sacr., v. 81.) This reasonable solution, however, was unsatisfactory to the restless critics of Germany. Strauss and others (whose names are mentioned by Bleek, Synopt. Erkl., 156, and Meyer, Komment., 289) charge the evangelist with a gross chronological error ;' a charge which they found on the assumption that the Lysanias of Chalcis, mentioned by Josephus, is identical with the Lysanias of Abilene, whom St. Luke mentions. This assumption is supported by an hypothesis which is incapable of proof; that Abilene, being contiguous to Chalcis, was united to the latter under the rule of Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy. It must, however, be borne in mind that Joseplms no where speaks of Abilene ia connection with this Lysanias ; nor, indeed, does he mention it at all until ten years after the notice by St. Luke. He calls Antony's victim simply ruler of Chalcis. Moreover, it is of importance to observe, that the tetrarchieal division of Palestine and neighbour ing districts was not made until after the death of Herod the Great ; so that, in his haste to inculpate the evangelist, Strauss, in effect, attributes to the historian, whom he invidiously opposes to St. Luke as a better authority, an amount of inaccu rate statement which, if true, would destroy all reliance on his history; for we have already se-en that Josephus more than once speaks of a tetrarchy of Lysanias ;' whereas there were no letrarchies' until more than thirty years after the death of Ptolemy's son, Lysanias. It is, therefore, a juster criticism to conclude (against Strauss, and with the earlier commentators) that in such passages as we have quoted above, whemin the historian speaks of Abila of Lysanias,' and The letrarchy of Ly sanias,' that a later Lysanias is certainly meant ; and that Josephus is not only accurate himself, but a voucher also for the veracity of St. Luke. But there is yet stronger evidence to be found in Josephus of the untenableness of Strauss' objection and theory. In his yezoish Wzrs (11. 12. S) the historian tells us, that the emperor Claudius re moved Agrippa [the second] from Chalcis [the kingdom, be it remembered, of Strauss' Lysanias] to a greater kingdom, giving him in addition the kingdom of Lysanias' (4K -rijs XaXa(Sos 'Ayphrray cis AcIP:uut pazzAcIcw go-a-rib-7)01 . . .
rpoo-Mnrcc 54. TO re Avaavlau ficto-IXEicty). Ebrard exposes the absurdity of Strauss' argument, by drawing from these words of Josephus the fol lowing conclusion—inevitable, indeed, on the terms of Strauss—that Agrippa was deprived of Chalcis, receiving, in exchange a larger kingdom, and also Chalcis ! (See Ebmrd's Gospel Hirt. [Clark], pp. 145, 146). The effect of this redzictio ad absurdum is well put by Dr. Lee (inspiration [it ed.], p. 394, note), Hence, therefore, Josephus does make mention of a later Lysanias [on the denial of which Strauss has founded his assault on St. Luke] ; and by doing so, fully corroborates the fact of the evangelist's intimate acquaintance with the tangled details of Jewish history in his day.' Many eminent writers have expressly accepted Ebrard's conclusion, including Meyer (tac. cit.) and Bleek (Loc. cit.) Patritius concludes an elabo rate examination of the entire case with the dis covery, that the later Lysanias, whom Luke mentions, was known to Josephus also ; and that, so far from any difficulty accruing out of Josephus to the evangelist's chronology, as alleged by ob jectors to his veracity, the historian's statements rather confirm and strengthen it ' (De Evangeliis, iii. 42, 25). It is interesting„ also, to remark that, if the sacred writer gains illustration from the Jewish historian in this matter, he also repays him the favour, by helping to clear up what would otherwise be unintelligible in his statements ; for in stance, when Josephus (Antiq. xvii. 17. 4) mentions Batanma, with Trachonitis and Auranitis, and a certain part of what was called the house of Zeno dorus,' as paying a certain tribute to Philip ' (015V TIN tdpEt OrK011 7.771,064ov Xeyou.1Yov); and when it is remembered that the house of Zenodoms ' included other territory besides Abilene (comp. Antiy. xv. to. 3, with Bell. 20. 4); we cannot but admit the force of the opinion ad vanced by Grotius (as quoted by Dr. Hudson, 071 the Antzy., xvii. it. 4), that when Josephus says, some part of the house, or possession, of Zenodorzzs was allotted to Philip, he thereby declares that the larger part of it belonged to another. This other was Lysanias, whom Luke mentions ' (see also Krebsius, Observall.,°p. ti2). It is not irrelevant to state that other writers, besides Strauss and his party, have held the identity of St. Luke's Lysanias with Josephus' son of Ptolemy, and have also believed that Josephus mentioned but one Lysanias. But (unlike Strauss) they resorted to a great shift rather than assail the veracity of the holy evan gelist. Valesius (on Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., to), and, more recently, Paulus (Comment. in loc.), sug gested an alteration of St. Luke's text, either by an erasure of Terpapxo0vros after 'Apopijs, or retaining the participle and making it agree with <1,LX(r7rou as its subject (getting rid of Avactytou as a leading word, by reducing it to a mere genitive of designa tion by its transposition with Tijs—q. d., rijs Av o-avlov rerpapxoilvras), as if Philip had been called by the evangelist Tetrarcb of Iturma, Trachonitis, and the Abilene of Lysanias.' This expedient, however, of saving St. Luke's veracity by the mutilation of his words is untenable, not having any support from MS. authority. In conclusion, it is worth adding, that in modern times a coin has been discovered bearing the inscription Avactyloy Terpcipxou Kat cipx4pcws, and Pococke also found an inscription on the remains of a Doric temple, called Nebi Abel, the ancient Abila, fifteen English miles from -Damascus, which makes mention of Lysaztias, tetrarch of Abilene. Both the coin and the inscription refer to a period subsequent to the death of Herod (Pococke's Description of the East, vol. ii., pt. I, pp. u5, 116 ; and Sestini, Lettere et Dicsertationi numismatiche, tom. vi., p. tot, tab. 2, as quoted by Wieseler, Chronolog. Synops. 183). These discoveries, therefore, certainly lend confir mation to the view we have taken, that the Lysa nias whom Josephus mentions in connection with events in the reigns of Caius and Claudius is in fact identical Nvith the Lysanias of St. Luke's Gos pel (see Davidson's Infra. N. T., p. 2tS). — P. H.