|
Was Luke Familiar
With The Land?
Ituraeans
turaeans were minor
players in King Herod’s reign; however, they occasionally influenced events
significantly. Yet Ituraea was not named in the final settlement of Herod’s
will - though it emerged in the pages of the New Testament as part of the territory of Herod
Philip, were minor
players in King Herod’s reign; however, they occasionally influenced events
significantly. Yet Ituraea was not named in the final settlement of Herod’s
will - though it emerged in the pages of the New Testament as part of the territory of Herod
Philip, were minor
players in King Herod’s reign; however, they occasionally influenced events
significantly. Yet Ituraea was not named in the final settlement of Herod’s
will - though it emerged in the pages of the New Testament as part of the territory of Herod
Philip,
"Tetrarch of the region
of Ituraea and Trachonitis"
(Luke 3:1).
According to Josephus, Philip had received Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis,
and some parts of Zenodorus’s domain around Panias (War 2.95; Ant. 17.319).
Both Luke and Josephus appear to be referring to the same area.
B
turaeans were minor
players in King Herod’s reign; however, they occasionally influenced events
significantly. Yet Ituraea was not named in the final settlement of Herod’s
will - though it emerged in the pages of the New Testament as part of the territory of Herod
Philip, were minor
players in King Herod’s reign; however, they occasionally influenced events
significantly. Yet Ituraea was not named in the final settlement of Herod’s
will - though it emerged in the pages of the New Testament as part of the territory of Herod
Philip, were minor
players in King Herod’s reign; however, they occasionally influenced events
significantly. Yet Ituraea was not named in the final settlement of Herod’s
will - though it emerged in the pages of the New Testament as part of the territory of Herod
Philip,
"Tetrarch of the region
of Ituraea and Trachonitis"
(Luke 3:1).
According to Josephus, Philip had received Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis,
and some parts of Zenodorus’s domain around Panias (War 2.95; Ant. 17.319).
Both Luke and Josephus appear to be referring to the same area.
B
turaeans were minor
players in King Herod’s reign; however, they occasionally influenced events
significantly. Yet Ituraea was not named in the final settlement of Herod’s
will - though it emerged in the pages of the New Testament as part of the territory of Herod
Philip, were minor
players in King Herod’s reign; however, they occasionally influenced events
significantly. Yet Ituraea was not named in the final settlement of Herod’s
will - though it emerged in the pages of the New Testament as part of the territory of Herod
Philip, were minor
players in King Herod’s reign; however, they occasionally influenced events
significantly. Yet Ituraea was not named in the final settlement of Herod’s
will - though it emerged in the pages of the New Testament as part of the territory of Herod
Philip,
"Tetrarch of the region
of Ituraea and Trachonitis"
(Luke 3:1).
According to Josephus, Philip had received Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis,
and some parts of Zenodorus’s domain around Panias (War 2.95; Ant. 17.319).
Both Luke and Josephus appear to be referring to the same area.
B
B
turaeans were minor
players in King Herod’s reign; however, they occasionally influenced events
significantly. Yet Ituraea was not named in the final settlement of Herod’s
will - though it emerged in the pages of the New Testament as part of the territory of Herod
Philip, were minor players in King Herod’s reign; however, they occasionally influenced events
significantly. Yet Ituraea was not named in the final settlement of Herod’s
will - though it emerged in the pages of the New Testament as part of the territory of Herod
Philip, were minor players in King Herod’s reign; however, they occasionally influenced events
significantly. Yet Ituraea was not named in the final settlement of Herod’s
will - though it emerged in the pages of the New Testament as part of the territory of Herod
Philip,
"Tetrarch of the region
of Ituraea and Trachonitis"
(Luke 3:1).
According to Josephus, Philip had received Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis,
and some parts of Zenodorus’s domain around Panias (War 2.95; Ant. 17.319).
Both Luke and Josephus appear to be referring to the same area.
B
were minor
players in King Herod’s reign; however, they occasionally influenced events
significantly. Yet Ituraea was not named in the final settlement of Herod’s
will - though it emerged in the pages of the New Testament as part of the territory of Herod
Philip.
"Tetrarch of the region
of Ituraea and Trachonitis"
(Luke 3:1).
According to Josephus, Philip had received Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis,
and some parts of Zenodorus’s domain around Panias (War 2.95; Ant. 17.319).
Both Luke and Josephus appear to be referring to the same area.
But
Luke’s account seems to be written by someone unfamiliar with the geography of the
land. Philip got some territory that had been Nabatean and some that had been
Ituraean, but little that had not already been Judaized, though to what extent it is not possible to
say.
(From Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans - Peter Richardson)
Back to People
Visit Our Online
Bookstore
Back
to Home
| |
GREAT BOOKS FOR YOUR LIBRARY
l l l
l l l
l l l
l l l
l l l
l l l
l l l
l l l
l l l
l l l
Complete 4 volume set of OT
l l l
l l l
l l l
l l l
l l l
l l l
l l l
|
