Okay. Let's try to keep this reasonable....for as long as we can.
Either of those dates are consistent with Pontius Pilate's term of office - 26 to 36 AD, as Praefect of Judaea.
Here's where you run into a problem.
I can't be bothered wading through Gjohn but I think you get the hint. The synoptic gospels all indicate that the reason for John's arrest was the denunciation of a marriage between Herod Antipas and Herodias.
Jesus picks up the flag after john's arrest and carries on. This is your story.
Now, fortunately (or not...depending on p-o-v) this marriage was a historical event.
In Book XVIII Chapter 5 of Antiquities of the Jews,
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm
Josephus lays out the political machinations which formed the basis of Antipas' divorce of the daughter of King Aretas of Nabatea and the marriage to Herodias. He also notes that Aretas attacked Antipas in retaliation and defeated him.
Now, all this is laid out in the citation above and you can read it if you like. At no point does Josephus mention anything about the marriage in terms of the reason for executing JtheB, but right now that is irrelevant. I do want to point out this line.
Let me introduce you to Lucius Vitellius Veteris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Vitellius_the_Elder
The bolded parts are vital. Roman provincial administration during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius required that the commanders of certain, militarily sensitive positions, be ex-consuls. As you can see,
http://www.unrv.com/government/consul-1-ad.php
we have a solid record of the men who held the consulship in the first century AD and there, under 34, is Vitellius listed with his colleague, Paullus Fabius Persicus.
But it gets worse. Vitellius would have completed his term of consul on Dec. 31, 34 and his appointment as governor of Syria would have begun as soon as Tiberius signed the order. He would then have made his way to Syria to assume his command. There would have been need for some haste. For 11 years, 22-33, the Imperial Legate ( the actual title given to what we call "Governor" and Josephus calls "president") had been Lucius Aelius Lamia a man who never left Rome and governed the province via surrogates. Apparently, it was a time of peace and stability! At any rate Vitellius was going to be busy asserting imperial control of the province and its 4 legions and equivalent auxilliaries.
However from what Josephus writes, we can tell that Vitellius was already in Antioch when he received the directive to go after Aretas. Given the efficiencies of the Roman cursus publicus ( military mail ) and the awful reality that attacking a Roman ally was never a wise idea it is simply impossible to reconcile the gospel accounts with known history.
JtheB could not have been denouncing a marriage which had not taken place. So, unless the gospel writers are wrong.... a possibility which I believe you would never admit...then the very earliest for his arrest would have been sometime in 34, probably late in 34 because the divorce of his daughter and subsequent attack by Aretas must be placed in 35 when Vitellius is already in Syria.
Vitellius did remove Pilate ( no need to discuss that now) in 36 and this analysis
http://www.bible-history.com/Herod_Antip...d_Rome.htm
(bible-thumpers, btw!) suggests that 36 is the more accurate date and they have a point because on his way south Vitellius did stop off in Jerusalem and remove Pilate from office... as well as Caiaphas. He then proceeded after Aretas but stopped in 37 when Tiberius died and he needed new instructions from Caligula. Aretas got off the hook but was dead 3 years later anyway.
I'm not arguing for or against the 36 date (even though I think the bible-thumpers make a good point.) I'm not worrying about the terminus ad quem (latest date) but the terminus a quo (earliest date.)
That date seems to be 35 since that is when Vitellius assumed the governorship of Syria and would have been in position to attack Aretas.
Since Aretas' attack was based on the divorce of his daughter we are at late 34/early 35.
But, without the divorce and re-marriage of Herod Antipas, JtheB had nothing to denounce and therefore no reason for Antipas to arrest him as insisted upon in your own books.
OK. Ball's in your court.
Either of those dates are consistent with Pontius Pilate's term of office - 26 to 36 AD, as Praefect of Judaea.
Here's where you run into a problem.
Quote: 17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her.
18 For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.
19 Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not: Mark 6
Quote:3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife.
4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.
5 And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. Matthew 14
Quote:19 But to Herod the ruler, he said, “It was wrong for you to take Herodias, your brother’s wife.” John also said that Herod had done many other bad things. 20 Finally, Herod put John in jail, and this was the worst thing he had done. Luke 3
I can't be bothered wading through Gjohn but I think you get the hint. The synoptic gospels all indicate that the reason for John's arrest was the denunciation of a marriage between Herod Antipas and Herodias.
Jesus picks up the flag after john's arrest and carries on. This is your story.
Now, fortunately (or not...depending on p-o-v) this marriage was a historical event.
In Book XVIII Chapter 5 of Antiquities of the Jews,
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm
Josephus lays out the political machinations which formed the basis of Antipas' divorce of the daughter of King Aretas of Nabatea and the marriage to Herodias. He also notes that Aretas attacked Antipas in retaliation and defeated him.
Now, all this is laid out in the citation above and you can read it if you like. At no point does Josephus mention anything about the marriage in terms of the reason for executing JtheB, but right now that is irrelevant. I do want to point out this line.
Quote:So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.
Let me introduce you to Lucius Vitellius Veteris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Vitellius_the_Elder
Quote:Lucius Vitellius the Elder (before 5 BC - 51) was the youngest of four sons of quaestor Publius Vitellius and the only one that did not die through politics. Under Emperor Tiberius, he was Consul in 34 and Governor of Syria in 35. He deposed Pontius Pilate in 36 after complaints from the people in Samaria.
The bolded parts are vital. Roman provincial administration during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius required that the commanders of certain, militarily sensitive positions, be ex-consuls. As you can see,
http://www.unrv.com/government/consul-1-ad.php
we have a solid record of the men who held the consulship in the first century AD and there, under 34, is Vitellius listed with his colleague, Paullus Fabius Persicus.
But it gets worse. Vitellius would have completed his term of consul on Dec. 31, 34 and his appointment as governor of Syria would have begun as soon as Tiberius signed the order. He would then have made his way to Syria to assume his command. There would have been need for some haste. For 11 years, 22-33, the Imperial Legate ( the actual title given to what we call "Governor" and Josephus calls "president") had been Lucius Aelius Lamia a man who never left Rome and governed the province via surrogates. Apparently, it was a time of peace and stability! At any rate Vitellius was going to be busy asserting imperial control of the province and its 4 legions and equivalent auxilliaries.
However from what Josephus writes, we can tell that Vitellius was already in Antioch when he received the directive to go after Aretas. Given the efficiencies of the Roman cursus publicus ( military mail ) and the awful reality that attacking a Roman ally was never a wise idea it is simply impossible to reconcile the gospel accounts with known history.
JtheB could not have been denouncing a marriage which had not taken place. So, unless the gospel writers are wrong.... a possibility which I believe you would never admit...then the very earliest for his arrest would have been sometime in 34, probably late in 34 because the divorce of his daughter and subsequent attack by Aretas must be placed in 35 when Vitellius is already in Syria.
Vitellius did remove Pilate ( no need to discuss that now) in 36 and this analysis
http://www.bible-history.com/Herod_Antip...d_Rome.htm
(bible-thumpers, btw!) suggests that 36 is the more accurate date and they have a point because on his way south Vitellius did stop off in Jerusalem and remove Pilate from office... as well as Caiaphas. He then proceeded after Aretas but stopped in 37 when Tiberius died and he needed new instructions from Caligula. Aretas got off the hook but was dead 3 years later anyway.
I'm not arguing for or against the 36 date (even though I think the bible-thumpers make a good point.) I'm not worrying about the terminus ad quem (latest date) but the terminus a quo (earliest date.)
That date seems to be 35 since that is when Vitellius assumed the governorship of Syria and would have been in position to attack Aretas.
Since Aretas' attack was based on the divorce of his daughter we are at late 34/early 35.
But, without the divorce and re-marriage of Herod Antipas, JtheB had nothing to denounce and therefore no reason for Antipas to arrest him as insisted upon in your own books.
OK. Ball's in your court.
