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

 

Free Web Counter
free counter

Thank you for visiting our site!
Sign up to receive BHC News & Updates by e-mail.

Tell a friend about BHC & FOLLOW BHC ONLINE -- click here.
Copyright 1999-2015 Biblical Heritage Center, Inc.
* Information on this website comes from a wide variety of sources and the inclusion of any source is not to be understood as an endorsement of the position, person, or group.   All comments or statements are those of the source and have been included for educational and research resources.
Jim Myers, Webmaster