Hey, D-P
The piece you aren't mentioning is the Roman one.
Josephus recounts that Aretas attacked Antipas in retaliation for the divorce of his daughter and that Tiberius directed the governor of Syria to attack Aretas - always a bad idea to attack a Roman ally. Anyway, Josephus specifies that the Roman governor was Vitellius.
From what we know of the career of Lucius Vitellius Veteris he was made consul in 34 and immediately upon concluding his term of office was appointed as the Imperial Legate (governor) of Syria. This cannot have been prior to 35. Moreover, it would have taken some time for Vitellius to put together a staff and transport himself and his entourage to Antioch so we can assume he did not arrive before Spring of 35 to assume his post. Of course, the primary duty of the Syrian army was to watch the Parthians and Josephus writes a detailed account of Vitellius' actions vis-a-vis that nation. Judaea was not anywhere near so vital.
Josephus also makes it clear that Tiberius wrote to Vitellius which means that Vitellius was already in Syria before this brouhaha between Aretas and Antipas began. So 35 is the terminus ad quo. We also learn that on his march south Vitellius removed both Pilate and Caiaphas from office and Pilate's term ended in 36. It is unthinkable that Vitellius would have delayed so long in obeying Tiberius' orders if they had arrived in 35 so because of the established historical facts late 35/early 36 makes more sense for the incident with Aretas-Antipas.
This does of course throw all sorts of monkey wrenches into the xtian timeline for their godboy and Josephus does not mention the marriage in relation to JtheB, anyway...only that Antipas considered him a troublemaker. Of course, JtheB was a citizen of Judaea which would have made him Pilate's subject and not Antipas' and raises the question of why JtheB would give a rat's ass about who the king of another country married.
This last is in keeping with the general garbling of history that we see in these so-called gospels. They botch the idea that Herod the Great's kingdom was divided among his children and treat Galilee and Judaea as the same country for the purposes of the absurd "census" which didn't happen anyway. Indeed, the last empire-wide lustrum - or counting of Roman citizens - took place in 73 under Vespasian and the gospel writers assumed that such events were commonplace so they invented one to get "jesus" to be born in Bethlehem.
The whole thing is a pile of shit created by poor writers who were not interested in history but in creating theology....which should not even be an academic subject.
The piece you aren't mentioning is the Roman one.
Josephus recounts that Aretas attacked Antipas in retaliation for the divorce of his daughter and that Tiberius directed the governor of Syria to attack Aretas - always a bad idea to attack a Roman ally. Anyway, Josephus specifies that the Roman governor was Vitellius.
From what we know of the career of Lucius Vitellius Veteris he was made consul in 34 and immediately upon concluding his term of office was appointed as the Imperial Legate (governor) of Syria. This cannot have been prior to 35. Moreover, it would have taken some time for Vitellius to put together a staff and transport himself and his entourage to Antioch so we can assume he did not arrive before Spring of 35 to assume his post. Of course, the primary duty of the Syrian army was to watch the Parthians and Josephus writes a detailed account of Vitellius' actions vis-a-vis that nation. Judaea was not anywhere near so vital.
Josephus also makes it clear that Tiberius wrote to Vitellius which means that Vitellius was already in Syria before this brouhaha between Aretas and Antipas began. So 35 is the terminus ad quo. We also learn that on his march south Vitellius removed both Pilate and Caiaphas from office and Pilate's term ended in 36. It is unthinkable that Vitellius would have delayed so long in obeying Tiberius' orders if they had arrived in 35 so because of the established historical facts late 35/early 36 makes more sense for the incident with Aretas-Antipas.
This does of course throw all sorts of monkey wrenches into the xtian timeline for their godboy and Josephus does not mention the marriage in relation to JtheB, anyway...only that Antipas considered him a troublemaker. Of course, JtheB was a citizen of Judaea which would have made him Pilate's subject and not Antipas' and raises the question of why JtheB would give a rat's ass about who the king of another country married.
This last is in keeping with the general garbling of history that we see in these so-called gospels. They botch the idea that Herod the Great's kingdom was divided among his children and treat Galilee and Judaea as the same country for the purposes of the absurd "census" which didn't happen anyway. Indeed, the last empire-wide lustrum - or counting of Roman citizens - took place in 73 under Vespasian and the gospel writers assumed that such events were commonplace so they invented one to get "jesus" to be born in Bethlehem.
The whole thing is a pile of shit created by poor writers who were not interested in history but in creating theology....which should not even be an academic subject.
