LUXS
427
LUXS
A3 the latter and Porphyry call him "kuig'\ it is
doubtful whether the coins Ix^ring the superscription,
" Lysanias tetrarch and high priest '* belong to him, for
there were one or more later princes called Lysanias.
After his death his kingdom was gradually divided up
into at least four districts, and the three principal ones
were certainly not called after him. A certain Zeno-
dorus took on lease the possessions of Lysanias, 23
B. c, but Trachonitis was soon taken from him and
given to Herod. On the death of Zenodonis in 20
B. c, Ulatha and Panias, the territories over which he
ruled, were given by Augustus to Herod. This is
called the tetrarchy of Zenodorus by Dion Cassius.
" It seems therefore that Zenodorus, after the death of
Lysanias, had received on rent a portion of his territory
from Cleopatra, and that after Cleopatra's death ihJk
' rented' aomain, subject to tribute, was continued to
him with the title of tetrarch (SchOrer, I, II, app., 333,
i) . Mention is made on a monument, at HeliopoUs. of
- ' Zenodorus, son of the tetrarch Lysanias ". It has
been generally supposed that this is the Zenodorus
i'ust mentioned, but it is uncertain whether the first jysanias was ever called tetrarch. It is proved from the inscriptions that there was a genealogical con- nexion between the families of Lysanias and Zeno- dorus, and the same name may have been often repeated in the family. Coins for 32, 30, and 25 b. c, belonging to our Zenodorus, have the superscription, "Zenodorus tetrarch and high priest. After the death of Herod the Great a portion of the tetrarchv of Zenodorus went to Herod's son, Philip (Jos., " Ant. , XVII, xi, 4), referred to b;^ St. Luke, "Plulip being tetrarch of Iturea" (Luke, lii, 1).
Another tetrarchv slic^ ofif from the dominions of Zenodorus lay to the east between Chalcis and Da- mascus, and went by the name of Abila or Abilene. Abila is frequently spoken of b}r Josephusas a tet- rarchy, and m *' Ant. , XVIII, vi, 10, he calls it tiie "tetrarchv of Lysanias". Claudius, in a. d. 41, con- ferred " Abila of Lysanias" on Agrippa I (Ant., XIX, V, 1). In A. D. 53, Agrippa II obtained Abila, "which last had been the tetrarcny of Lysanias" (Ant., XX., vii, 1). "From these passages we see that the tet- rarchy of Abila had belonged previously to a. d. 37 to a certain Lysanias, and seeit^^hat Josephus no- where previously makes any )iiBtiD{6 ot if another Lvsanias, except the contempotoalk^JlllilittDy and Cleopatra, 40-36 b. c. . . . criticti in various ways to show thawRre had not after- wards been any other, and piat the tetrarchy of Abilene had its name from the older Lysanias. But this is impossible" (Schilrer, 337). Lysanias I inher- ited the Iturean empire of his father Ptolemy, of which Abila was but a small and very obscure por- tion. Calchis in Coele-Syria was the capita of^his kingdom, not Abila in Abilene. He reigned only about four years and was a comparatively obscure individual when compared with his father Ptolemy, or his successor Zenodorus, both of whom reigned many years. There is no reason why any portion of his kingdom should have been called after his name rather than theirs; and it is hiehlv improbable that Josephus speaks of Abilene as callca after him seventy years after his death. As Lysanias I was king over the whole region, one small portion of it could not be called his tetrarchy or kingdom, as is done by Josephus (Bel. Jud., II, xii, 8). "It must therefore be as- sumed as certain that at a later date the district of Abilene had been severed from the kingdom of Cal- chis, and had been governed by a younger Lysanias as tetrarch" (SchUrer, 337). The existence of such a late Lysanias is shown by an inscription found at Abila, containing the statement that a certain Nym- phaios, the freedmian of Lysanias, built a street and erected a temple in the time of the "August Emper- ors". Augusti (Z€/3(MToO in the plural was never used before the death of Augustus, a. d. 14. The
first contemporary Sc^curro/ were Tiberius and hia
mother Livia, i. e. at a time fifty years after the first
Lysanias. An inscription at HeliopoUs, in the same
region, makes it probable that there were several
pnnces of this name. "The Evangelist Luke is
thoroughly correct when he assumes (iii, 1) that in
the fifteenth year of Tiberius there was a Lysanias
tetrarch of Abilene" (Schiirer. op. cit., where fuU
literature is given; Vigouroux, op. cit).
VIII. Who Spoke the Magnificat? — ^Lately aa attempt has been made to ascribe the Magnificat to Elizabeth instead of to the Blessed Virgin. All the early Fathers, all the Greek MSS., all the versiona, aU the Latin MSS. (except three) have the reading in Luke, i, 46: Kal eJirev Maptd/i — Et ait Maria [And Mary said]: MagwUicat anima mea Dominunif ete. Three Old Latin lifSS. (the earliest dating from the end of the fourth cent.), a, b, 1 (called rhe by Westcott ana Hort), have Et ait Elisabeth, These tend to such close agreement that their combined evidence is single rather than threefold. They are full of gross blunders and palpable corruptions, and the attempt to pit their evidence against the many thousands of Greek, Latin, and other MSS., is anything but scientific. If the evidence were reversed. Catholics would be held up to ridicule if they ascribed the Magnificat to Maiy. The three MSS. gain little or no support from the internal evidence of the passage. The Magnificat is a cento from the song of Anna (I Kings, li), the Psalms, and other places of the Old Testament. If it were spoken by Elizabeth it is remarkable that the portion of Anna's sone that was most appUcable to her is omitted: "The barren hath borne many: aad she that had many children is weakened." See, on this subject, Emmet in "The Expositor" (Dec., 1909); Bernard, ibid. (March, 1907); and the exhaustive works of two Catholic writers: Ladeuze, "Revue d'histoireeccl^iasticiue" (Louvain, Oct., 1903); Bar- denhewer, "Maria Verkundigung" (Freiburg, 1905).
IX. The Census of Quiriniub. — ^No portion of the New Testament has been so fiercely attacked as Luke, ii, 1-5. Schiirer has brought together, under six heads, a formidable array of all the objections that can be urged against it. There is not space to refute them here; but Ramsay in his "Was Christ bom in Bethlehem?" has shown that they all fall to the groimd: —
(1) St. Luke does not assert that a census took place all over the Roman Empire before the death of Herod, but that a decision emanated from Augustus that regular census were to be made. Whether they were carried out in general, or not, was no concern oi St. Luke's. If history does not prove the existence of such a decree it certainly proves nothing against it. It was thought for a lone time that the system of In- dictions was inaugurated under the early Roman eaoor perors; it is now known that they owe their origin to Constantine the Great (the first taking place mteen years after his victory of 312), and this m spite of the fact tliat history knew nothing of the matter. Keor yon holds that it is very probable that Pope Damasus ordered the Vulgate to be regarded as the only author- itative edition of the Latin Bible; but it would be difficult to prove it historically. If "history knows nothing" ot the census in PoJestine before 4 b. c, neither did it know anything of the fact that under the Romans in Egypt regular personal census were held every fourteen years, at least from a. d. 20 till the time of Constantine. Many of these census papers have been discovered, and they were called iiroypa^til, the name used by St. Luke. They were made without any reference to property or taxation. The head of the household gave his name and age, the name and age of his wife, children, and slaves. He mentioned how many were included in the previous census, and how many bom since that time. Valuation returoB were made every year. The fourteen. Ti^assf ^g:^^^*.
