John the Baptist

[John V]

But it's the simplest explanation. The alternative is to tie yourself into knots trying to make them all fit with one another. See my "ad hoc hypothesis" description above.

The texts themselves fit with one another just fine. The only problems you've noted were created by your own imagination and assumptions.

You know, if I didn't know any better, I'd say you were defending the apology that you refused to defend earlier.

That said, and you're welcome to decide you've changed your mind, can you map out the 4 point timeline? I think I may just be confused as to the order of events you're describing.

Yes, you were confused, and I already suggested you switch 2 & 3. Let's take a closer look.

You had it:
1. John's Gospel version of Jesus' meeting with JtB.
2. Extra bit of ministry not reported in the Synoptics.
3. Jesus gets baptized per Synoptic Gospel accounts.
4. JtB is put into prison.

I assume your point 1 is referring to John 1:29-34. Correct me if this is wrong. In that case:

1 & 3 are concurrent, with 1 not mentioning the baptism. I.e., another argument from silence.

Then 2. Then 4.

The passage refers to Peter and Andrew calling Jesus the Christ and following him. The later passage in John chapter 3 that I offered described where Jesus and his disciples went. In other words, Jesus had gathered his disciples, an event which doesn't happen in the Syoptics until after JtB was put into prison. [./quote]
Again, disciples by itself does not mean the twelve apostles. It's incorrect to say that Jesus had gathered his disciples. He gathered disciples throughout his ministry, and lost some, too.

[quote]My use of the absence of evidence was not fallacious, for reasons already offered.

You mean for special pleadings already offered.

Much as people of faith try to claim otherwise, in some cases absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

Sure - when we would have good reason to expect to see something. You haven't given good reason that we should expect John to include everything that's in the synoptics.

Not necessarily. Non Christians could have reported on the miracles as "sorcery" or "unexplained events".

For that matter, non Christians could have failed to notice the miracles but still reported on the famous and controversial ministry of Jesus which had spread to all the colonies like wildfire and captured the attention of the local priests and rulers.

They could have. They didn't. Clearly, if Jesus existed, he got no one's attention outside his small band.

People "could" do a lot of things. Writing was not as easy and cheap then as it is now. There's no compelling reason to expect people to take the time and effort to record something they didn't think was legitimate, and then for others to copy those accounts for centuries.