John the Baptist

[DeistPaladin]

I'd like to open this discussion for John the Baptist (hereafter JtB) as it's the part of my Jesus Timeline where my knowledge is the most fuzzy.

JtB's imprisonment and execution are some of the historical landmarks in the Gospel accounts. According to all three of the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matt and Luke), Jesus only started his ministry after JtB was put into prison. John contradicts this point, flatly stating that Jesus started his ministry well before JtB was arrested, but that's just one of many ways John's Gospel sits oddly alongside the others and a different topic.

According to Luke, JtB started his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius, which would place the very beginning (not end) of his ministry around 29 CE, perhaps as early as 28 CE.

According to the Bible and corroborated by Josephus, JtB spoke out against Herod Antipas' marriage to his dead brothers widow, which involved dumping his own wife and marrying his niece. Antipas responded by throwing JtB into prison and later executing him.

The definite dates I have are on Herod's brother (Philip) who died in 33/34 CE, which would put the dates of the marriage afterwards. His jilted wife learned of Antipas' plans and fled to her father's kingdom. Her father, Aratas, was rather teed off and took it personally, waging war with Antipas in response. The subsequent battle was in 36 CE just before the death of Emperor Tiberius. So these dates would put JtB's imprisonment somewhere in the ballpark of 35 CE, give or take a year.

Apologists try to claim that Antipas stole his brother's wife while Philip was still alive, pushing the dates of JtB's imprisonment to 27 CE. The three problems here, aside from this being an unsubstantiated ad hoc, is that Philip was the ruler of his own section of Judea and had no problem with this? And JtB was imprisoned a year before he started his ministry? And there's not enough time between the governorship of Quirinius (6 CE at the earliest) and for Jesus to be "about 30" in 28 CE.

I look forward to Minimalist educating me if he will do me the honor. He's so much more well-read on ancient history than I. Others are also welcome to educate me.

[Minimalist]

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.

[Drich]

I'd like to open this discussion for John the Baptist (hereafter JtB) as it's the part of my Jesus Timeline where my knowledge is the most fuzzy.

JtB's imprisonment and execution are some of the historical landmarks in the Gospel accounts. According to all three of the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matt and Luke), Jesus only started his ministry after JtB was put into prison. John contradicts this point, flatly stating that Jesus started his ministry well before JtB was arrested, but that's just one of many ways John's Gospel sits oddly alongside the others and a different topic.

Where did John "contradict this point flatly?"

[Minimalist]

John 3

22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23 Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were coming and being baptized. 24 (This was before John was put in prison.) 25 An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. 26 They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.”

Seriously, Drippy. Haven't you read this shit at all?

[John V]

I'd like to open this discussion for John the Baptist (hereafter JtB) as it's the part of my Jesus Timeline where my knowledge is the most fuzzy.

JtB's imprisonment and execution are some of the historical landmarks in the Gospel accounts. According to all three of the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matt and Luke), Jesus only started his ministry after JtB was put into prison. John contradicts this point, flatly stating that Jesus started his ministry well before JtB was arrested, but that's just one of many ways John's Gospel sits oddly alongside the others and a different topic.

Where did John "contradict this point flatly?"

That seems like a reasonable conclusion from John 3. I would question the declaration that "According to all three of the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matt and Luke), Jesus only started his ministry after JtB was put into prison." That they don't mention ministry for a time doesn't mean that there wasn't any.

[ronedee]

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.

Since when was Pilate a king, or a Jew?

John that Baptist was concerned about the sins of the leaders of the Jewish people.

You should include your last statement about your own references.

[Bad Writer]

I suspect an explanation from Drich as to how Jesus' pre-ministry was quite different from the one accomplished during his Messiah-hood that he took up after his baptism at the hands of JtB.

And as for your comment, ronedee:

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.

Since when was Pilate a king, or a Jew?

John that Baptist was concerned about the sins of the leaders of the Jewish people.

You should include your last statement about your own references.

Pay attention in class! Nowhere did Min ever say that Pilate was a King or a Jew. Do only kings have subjects?

[ronedee]

Pay attention in class! Nowhere did Min ever say that Pilate was a King or a Jew. Do only kings have subjects?

"...why JtheB would give a rat's ass about who the king of another country married."

So, why is Pilate mentioned?


............I'm waiting teacher!?

[Minimalist]

Since when was Pilate a king, or a Jew?

John that Baptist was concerned about the sins of the leaders of the Jewish people.

You should include your last statement about your own references.

Where did I say that Pilate was a king or a jew? He was Roman praefect of Judaea which was considerably higher than either at the time.

The only thing we know about JtheB was that he was killed. The rest of it is shit that you clowns have made up.

Unlike you, I do not need "references." Unlike you, I am capable of studying a document and reaching my own conclusions without some pervert priest telling me what it means. You should try it some time. You might find it liberating...but probably not. Sheep are happiest in flocks.

So, why is Pilate mentioned?

Because they were different political entities at the time. That is so simple a concept that even you should be able to process it.

[ronedee]

Since when was Pilate a king, or a Jew?

John that Baptist was concerned about the sins of the leaders of the Jewish people.

You should include your last statement about your own references.

Where did I say that Pilate was a king or a jew? He was Roman praefect of Judaea which was considerably higher than either at the time.

The only thing we know about JtheB was that he was killed. The rest of it is shit that you clowns have made up.

Unlike you, I do not need "references." Unlike you, I am capable of studying a document and reaching my own conclusions without some pervert priest telling me what it means. You should try it some time. You might find it liberating...but probably not. Sheep are happiest in flocks.

Well, tell me....WHY DID YOU MENTION HIM?

A prefect higher than a King? By who's standards?