"Gospel Quest" (or The Jesus Timeline)

[Jenny A]

Have you read Isaiah 7? If not take a minute and read the whole chapter--it's not long. It is a prediction of what will happen before a child is grown. The prediction is made to King Ahaz about the kings coming to war against him currently. Things were rather immediate and dire for Ahaz at the time. The things Isaiah predicted happened long before Jesus was born.

Try taking two minutes and reading it more carefully. Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, and so the sign is given to the house of David.

I've read it many times. Ahaz is King of Judea because he is David's descendent. To the extent that there was a House of David, Ahaz and his sons were it. Earlier in the chapter he and his people are called the House of David for just that reason. Isaiah 7:2.

This whole chapter of Isaiah is beautifully human. Someone should write play. On the one hand there is Ahaz who is the third-rate descendant of the great King David, slayer of thousands, poet, and beloved of god. Ahaz is not only far from a great warrior, he has fooled around with foreign gods and even scarified a son. He's a bit of a coward too. On the other there is wise and brave Isaiah the prophet come as a messenger from God to set Ahaz straight.

So as the chapter opens King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Israel have formed an alliance to take Jerusalem. When Ahaz and his people heard of this they "were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind." Isaiah 7:1-2 Rather poetic that---whole forest of shaking House of David.

Then god says to Isaiah, don't worry about those two old kings who have come to get Jerusalem. Take your son and meet Ahaz out on the road to Washerman's Field. Isaiah 7:3 Tell him that I say that those two old kings won't be able to dislodge him if he stands unafraid and firm in him faith. (Don't be a wuss). Isaiah 7:4-9 And the lord said to Ahaz, presumably through Isaiah "Ask the Lord your God for a sign." Isaiah 7:10 And Isaiah, like Jesus with the Devil says, "I will not put the Lord to the test." (Though apparently when Isaiah says it it's a bad thing to say and when Jesus says it it's a good thing to say. Who knew?)

Then Isaiah loses his patience and says, "Hear now you House of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of man [meaning his venerable self]. Must you try the patience of my God also?" It's like a parent calling his delinquent son by all three names. "You, you, little snotty king boy. You are the descendant of David, stand up straight, fly right and remember who the hell you are. To think a descendant of David would be such a sniveling coward. You won't ask for a sign, I'll give you a sign anyway."

"Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. ” Isaiah 7:14-17 NRSV

You see, if you read it, t's a prophecy about those two kings who were invading Jerusalem right then. And the prophesy was if you stand up and behave like a man Ahaz, within a few years Jerusalem will be safe from those nasty guys. And considering that Ahaz needs god and will not ask for him, and yet God is going to help anyway, Immanuel is a very appropriate name for the child don't you think? God is with Ahaz whether he wants god or not.

---

Where is your proof that no one wrote anything down? Guess what, most paper documents don't survive. The original gospels and Pauline letters have not survived and they would have been particularly prized. Jerusalem was sacked and burned--reducing further the likelihood of written Jewish records surviving. The Romans were not interested in Jesus until there was a large following to take note of decades if not a century later.

Generally speaking people don't write anything down. It's the default position. Proof of earlier notes is required not proof nothing was recorded.

Paul wrote letters and his churches circulated them almost immediately. The writers of the Gospels didn't write until 60 years or so after the events they describe.

You also cannot make the claim that the writers of the Gospels were not working off of notes and written accounts of others. Clearly the goal was to tell a complete history so posterity could read and understand the context and content and not a court transcript with footnotes. There is no way for you to know the method by which this information was conveyed. [emphasis added]

Precisely, we can't know how the information was transmitted, but the Gospels read in turns, like oral tradition and legend with occasional and brief attempts at using real places and people for verisimilitude.

What they do not read like is eyewitness accounts. The third person is used through-out and no witness could have seen everything described. Who witnessed Joseph's dreams? Who witnessed Mary's virginity? How could they witness Mary's virginity? Who saw the devil tempt Jesus? Who heard Jesus with god after the disciples all fell asleep? --- Puzzling ain't it?

We know that Jesus existed and was almost certainly crucified. We know that a new religion sprang up around these events. We know that the very first adherents believed these events happened. These events were written down and distributed only 30-60 years from the death of Jesus--still plenty of time for the older group to object to inaccuracies. Add to this the content of this new religious was not something that was likely made up--in both the complexity of the theology, the strong break from Judaism, and the circumstance surrounding Jesus. This all adds up to the only two logical conclusion available: that some or all of the things written in the Gospels happened. Of course it seems you have chosen the illogical conclusion and decided to stick you head in the sand. I have chose the other end of the spectrum and believe what is claims to be.

Well actually we don't know for sure. I've just finished On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt by Richard Carrier and he makes a fair case for Jesus being entirely myth and not a historical person at all. I'm not sure really whether there was a real man behind the Jesus stories myself. But the thing is that there is absolutely no contemporary evidence of Jesus--none zip, nil. Nothing until Paul and Paul has a vision of Jesus, not Jesus.

[Minimalist]

We know that Jesus existed and was almost certainly crucified.

Evidence? Or are you just running your mouth again?

[DeistPaladin]

Part II: The Jesus Timeline

So now that we've introduced our "reliable eye-witnesses" and found them to be neither reliable nor eye-witnesses, let's closely examine their testimonies and see if we can create a coherent timeline.

The historical milestones that we can use to try to place the life of Jesus in the timestream of the past include the lives and administrations of the following figures:

• Caesar Augustus: Died 14 CE
  
• Caesar Tiberius: Ruled Rome from 14 CE to 27 CE.
  
• Pontius Pilate: Governor of Judea from 26 to 36 CE.
  
• Quirinius: Governor of Syria from 6 CE to 12 CE.
  
• King Herod the Great: Died in 4 BCE, late March or early April.
  

There's one other historical figure to add to the list: John the Baptist (or JtB, as we'll call him for short and to distinguish him from the John on the witness stand). His dates are a little more tricky to nail down exactly but we can closely approximate them with a little research.

First, Luke tells us that he started his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar.

3:1-2 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

This places the start of JtB's ministry in 28-29 CE. Mind you, this is the start of what would be a very noteworthy and successful ministry, not the end of it. It's important to establish when the end of his ministry is because that's when the three Synoptic Gospels tell us that Jesus began his ministry.

John the Baptist had a most successful ministry. He has followers to this day who insist that he is the messiah. Unlike Jesus, he has contemporary mentions by historians like Josephus. Such a following is typically not put together overnight. Luckily, we don't have to just speculate he needed a few years but we also have an important historical event to use as a milestone.

Luke tells us that JtB got into trouble with Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, for criticizing his marriage to his brother's wife, Herodius, and was put into prison.

3:19 But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done,

Herodius was married to Philip, who died in 32-33 CE. Philip was the tetrarch of Ituraea, a substantial track of territory. Could Antipas' marriage been a political maneuver to secure this territory? Already by that point, Rome had managed to secure Archelaus' territory in 6 CE. Surely that must have been a concern for Antipas. Map below shows the division of lands among the Herodian children.



There was a complication: Antipas was already married to the daughter of king Aratas of the neighboring state, Nabatea. The said daughter learned of Antipas' plans to divorce her and she fled to the safety of her father's kingdom. With his daughter safe in his custody, Aratas made war with Antipas. Aratas defeated Antipas' forces in 36 CE, forcing Antipas to plead with Rome for assistance. Governor Vitellius of Syria, under orders from Tiberius, came to Antipas' aid but the death of Tiberius (March 37 CE) cause the governor to conclude he no longer had the authority to pursue war with Aratas.

Christian apologists and even secular "historists" (those secular historians who believe Jesus was a mortal religious leader) want to push the dates of the end of JtB's ministry to 29 CE or before, allowing Jesus to start his ministry around 30 CE. However, such an early date makes no sense, not just because JtB would have had no time to establish a successful ministry but it also pushes the dates of the divorce of Antipas to before that time as well. The battle with Aratas over that divorce happened in 36 CE. Did it take seven years for Aratas to get around to following through with his declaration of war? And if it did take that long, Antipas would have had forewarning of the coming invasion and pleaded with Rome for assistance much sooner. Antipas was a client state of Rome, under its protection. Had Aratas declared war in 30 CE but not attacked until 36 CE, instead of battling with Antipas' forces alone, he'd have faced a Roman legion.

A timeline that better fits the facts is JtB was jailed around 34 CE. This gives JtB enough time to establish his ministry and also fits with Luke's timeline that Jesus was "about 30" when JC started his ministry, but we'll get into that when we closely examine that timeline specifically. It also fits the political events nicely.

To underscore this point, let's compare the two possible timelines:

Christian Apologist Timeline

• 28 CE: JtB starts ministry. Run music to "Yakety Axe" as he manically establishes his successful ministry in just one year.
  
• 29 CE: Antipas says "hey baby, let's ditch our spouses and get married", Herod Philip says, "meh, go ahead", JtB says "stop this wikedness at once I say", Antipas says, "OK, to jail with you then"
  
• 30 CE: Aratas says, "How dare you ditch my daughter? I declare war!"
  
• 31 CE: ...
  
• 32 CE: ...
  
• 33 CE: ...
  
• 34 CE: ...
  
• 35 CE: ...
  
• 36 CE: Battle ensues. Antipas gets his ass kicked. Antipas says, "Rome, help me!". Tiberius says, "Bring me Aratas' head."
  

More likely timeline:

• 28 CE: JtB starts his ministry.
  
• 33 CE: Philip croaks. Antipas says, "Crap, now Rome will take his lands. Time to marry his wife."
  
• 34 CE: JtB gets all bent out of shape over the divorce and remarriage. Aratas is none too pleased either. JtB shoots off his mouth and gets thrown in jail.
  
• 35 CE: Aratas declares war.
  
• 36 CE: Antipas gets his ass kicked and pleads with Rome for assistance.
  

This timeline also better conforms to Luke's timeline that Jesus was "about 30" when he started his ministry.

So with all the characters in place, let's map out the three separate timelines.

To be continued...

[SteveII]

Tell me why this cannot be a possibility: Josephus' Jewish Antiquities Book 18, chapter 5, paragraph 4 comment that Herodias "divorced herself from her husband while he was alive" to argue that it took place before Philip's death, in about the year 27, thus making it possible for Jesus to have been born in the reign of Herod the Great (as indicated by the Gospel of Matthew) and to have died in his early 30's (as indicated by the Gospel of Luke). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Antipas

[DeistPaladin]

The Jesus Timeline Continued

So having set the stage with the major players and historical landmarks, we can cross-examine the testi
mony of the four "witnesses" and see if we can put together a coherent timeline of events.

Let's begin with Luke, as his testimony is the one with the most benchmarks to use. First, Luke tells us that Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod the Great.

1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, ...
[story of Zacharias and Elisabeth conceiving John the Baptist]
1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
[story of the conception of Jesus in Mary]
1:39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
1:40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

So Mary became pregnant by The Holy Spirit during the reign of Herod the Great. Mary then goes to visit Elisabeth who is informed by The Holy Spirit what has happened. Elisabeth confirms for the story that Mary is pregnant and this future child will be Jesus. We've also established that Mary is a resident of the town of Nazareth so that's how Jesus would have been a resident of that town (hold that thought for our cross-examination of Matthew).

Herod the Great died in 4 BCE around March or April so there's our first milestone. Jesus was conceived prior to 4 BCE.

OK, moving on, so Quirinius becomes the governor of Syria in 6 CE. Rome, having secured this province, is interested in the tax revenue it can generate so it conducts a census. Luke references this census as part of the birth of Jesus, as a plot device to get Mary to Bethlehem, since the messiah needs to be born "in the City of David".

2:1-5 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

This convoluted system of running a census seems most unlikely, particularly requiring a man in one province not yet under the authority of Rome to report to a province under Roman authority simply because he'd been born there but it's necessary to somehow get Mary to Jerusalem in time for the birth so we'll let that go.

So we've established that Jesus would have been born AFTER 6 CE. This would have made Mary's pregnancy with Jesus span at least 10 years. Well, maybe those sons of gods take longer to bake in the oven.

Luke then in the remainder of chapter 2 tells us about Mary's trip to the temple and they run into a few other characters and then she returns home directly to Nazareth.

2:39-40 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. 2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

So if Jesus is part of the triune god, how can Jesus grow strong in spirit, fill with wisdom and attain the grace of himself? Wouldn't he, being part of God, already be as strong in the spirit and full of wisdom as possible? What does it mean to have the "grace of God" if he already IS God? And how does he "increase in ...favour" with himself? Ah well, that's all part of the Trinity madness and right now we're discussing the timeline of events so let that go.

Jesus is baptized by JtB and the other two synoptics (cross-examined later) tell us that Jesus began his ministry after his trip to the Wilderness for 40 days and when he returned, John the Baptist had been put in prison. Luke tells us that Jesus was "about 30" when he began his ministry.

3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age

So if Jesus was born during or after 6 CE, he would have been 30 no sooner than 36 CE. However, Luke says "about" 30, so this gives us some wiggle room.

According to John's Gospel (cross-examined later), Jesus' ministry contained at least three separate Passover holidays. This means that Jesus' ministry would need to span 2-3 years, minimum.

Jesus was crucified by Pilate, which would mean the very latest he crucifixion could have happened would have been around the Passover holiday of 36 CE. So if we fudge the age of Jesus a tad and say "about 30" means 28, we can shoe-horn everything into place. It's a tight squeeze but here's what I come up with:

• Jesus is born in 6 CE during the census of Quirinius.
  
• Jesus starts his ministry when he's "about 30" (28) in 34 CE.
  
• Jesus is crucified in 36 CE, just in time for Pilate's recall.
  

But Jewish custom would have forbidden Jesus to have a ministry before he turned 30. Well, maybe like the eager young recruits of wars, Jesus lied about his age so he could get an early start. Aside from this and Mary's 10 year pregnancy, we've made everything fit.

Apologists will want to push JtB's arrest to 29 CE or earlier but then Jesus is too young to be "about 30" in addition to the fact that JtB doesn't have enough time to start his ministry and there's too long a delay between Aratas' declaration of war and the battle that ensued with Antipas in 36 CE.

Josephus' Jewish Antiquities Book 18, chapter 5, paragraph 4 comment that Herodias "divorced herself from her husband while he was alive" to argue that it took place before Philip's death

Good catch and I will concede that point but it only fits my mapped out scenario. If Philip was dying or otherwise very old and ill, it makes sense for both him and Antipas to worry about the future of their family's kingdom. A marriage to Herodious might have fit with efforts to secure Philips' lands before Philip could pass away. Or maybe Herod Antipas was really in love with Herodius. Either way, it still fits with the year 33 CE, giving JtB enough time to get his ministry going and Aratas enough time to declare war and fight the subsequent battle.

Now, apologists will tie themselves into knots doing various mental gymnastics to push Jesus' birth to before 4 BCE, a decade earlier, but we'll get to that when I deal with the apologetic responses.

Next Witness: Matthew





To be continued...

[Minimalist]

Might I offer one more nail for you to hammer in, D-P.

Governor Vitellius of Syria,

Lucius Vitellius Veteris became governor (actually Imperial Legate ) of Syria in 35. In 34 he had been elected consul which was a prerequisite for one of the major military commands under the administrative system followed by both Augustus and Tiberius. Many Roman provinces did not have any legions based therein and were governed by senatorial appointees with what amounted to small police forces. Syria, Germania and the Danube regions were exceptions and there the legions were stationed to keep an eye on foreign troublemakers and the Emperor appointed those commanders. As noted, they were drawn from the list of Roman consuls.

As it happens Lucius Vitellius was the father of the later short-lived emperor (Aulus) Vitellius who was executed by troops loyal to Vespasian at the end of the year of the 4 emperors. We have thus retained a great deal of biographical information including the manner of his death.

Xtians in their absurd desire to push their godboy into the story are thus forced to throw out any Roman history which contradicts it. Well, the Romans didn't give a single fuck about their bullshit story and we know when Vitellius went to Syria.

[DeistPaladin]

Xtians in their absurd desire to push their godboy into the story are thus forced to throw out any Roman history which contradicts it. Well, the Romans didn't give a single fuck about their bullshit story and we know when Vitellius went to Syria.

Thanks as always but I don't think the Christians are disputing this. They claim that the divorce and jailing of JtB happened in 27-29 CE, about the same time that JtB started his ministry. Putting aside this means that JtB arrives on the scene, is instantly hailed as the new messiah and then is ushered off the stage in the same year, this means that Aratas declared war and then sat on his hands for nearly 10 years.

Makes about as much sense as the 10 year pregnancy of Mary.

---

Next Witness: Matthew

Matthew places the birth of Jesus prior to the death of King Herod the Great.

2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem

Then Herod ordered the death of all the infants around Jerusalem, in a historically unrecorded infantacide lifted straight out of the Book of Exodus (which itself had been lifted from the legend of Sargon). Joseph is warned and he takes Jesus to Egypt.

2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

Out of curiosity, how were the soldiers going to kill the son of God? If Jesus was God incarnate, then let the soldiers run their swords through him all day. You can't kill a god like that. Everyone knows you first need to go to the ends of the earth and defeat the Five-headed Foosil to recover the Sword of the Seven Parts and anoint it with the balm of the Maguffin before... or something like that.

...and all the other babies about to be killed. Nope. Angels can't do anything about that. Fuck 'em. Free will and all that or something. But I digress.

2:19-23 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life. And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

So Mary and Joseph lived in Jerusalem, moved to Egypt and then moved to Nazareth. This contrasts with Luke's Jesus who's family lived in Nazareth, visited Jerusalem and then returned to their home in Nazareth.

Before apologists say, "no, Matthew never says..." read it again. Joseph was going to return to his home in Judea. He couldn't because of Archelaus. It was only the reign of Archelaus that made him move north and settle in the city of Nazareth. If he had lived in Nazareth all along, there would have been no reason to return to Jerusalem in the first place. The only reason Luke's Joseph was even in Jerusalem at all was because of some cockamamie census. It was just intended as a visit.

So Matt's Jesus was born before 4 BCE. But what about the census in Luke? Apologists like to suggest an earlier census of 9-8 BCE but this would have made Jesus way too old to be "about 30" by the time JtB even started his ministry in 28-29 CE. Additionally, all of Judea was not part of Rome but a client state run by Herod the Great. The citizens of Judea were NOT Roman citizens at that point in history. The entire point of the census under Quirinius and Luke's reference to taxation was because Rome had just acquired new provinces and wanted to know how much tax revenue there was to be gained.

In Sum:
Matt's Jesus was born before 4 BCE.
Luke's Jesus was born after 6 CE.

Next Witness: John

To be continued...

[Minimalist]

Thanks as always but I don't think the Christians are disputing this.

Fuck, man. They don't even know about it. But it is a nice check on their fantasies. All they read is their silly bible. So when "paul" claims to have escaped Damascus they accept it as "gospel" (pun intended) even though there is no indication anywhere else in history that Nabatea controlled Damascus in the first century.

This is why they need to have real history pounded up their asses with a mallet at every opportunity.

Matt's Jesus was born before 4 BCE.
Luke's Jesus was born after 6 CE.

And mark and john don't give a shit about his birth.

The Infancy Gospel claims that Mary shitted jesus out and he turned and said to her.

2 He relates, that Jesus spake even when he was in the cradle, and said to his mother:

3 Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God, that word, which thou didst bring forth according to the declaration of the angel Gabriel to thee, and My Father hath sent me for the salvation of the world.

[DeistPaladin]

So when "paul" claims to have escaped Damascus they accept it as "gospel" (pun intended) even though there is no indication anywhere else in history that Nabatea controlled Damascus in the first century.

Oh, I'm sure that Rome would've happily ceded such a plum piece of real estate without much of a fuss. And when that happened, I'm sure no one would have considered it noteworthy.

...john don't give a shit about his birth.

As I will soon review, John actually does place Jesus' birth around 20 BCE, though you need to go outside the Gospel itself to some of the other Christian writings of the time. John's Jesus was almost 50 years old when he was crucified around 28 CE.

2 He relates, that Jesus spake even when he was in the cradle, and said to his mother: ...

Funny as that is, when you think of it, is it any more crazy than a baby being God? Did Mary have to get up for God's nightly feedings? Did Mary have to change God's diapers? It was a good move for the Gospel writers to quickly gloss over the story right after Jesus' birth and fast forward to age 30, with just a brief episode of when he was 12.

[Minimalist]

Oh, you mean like....




And I think that bullshit story about the 12 year old was ripped straight out of Josephus' autobiography.

Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law.

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/autobiog.htm

IIRC, that particular bullshit story appears only in luke...that most Roman of the gospels...and one which seems strongly dependent on Josephus for its historical content.

So they made their godboy two years younger than Josephus when he claimed to have wowed them at the temple!

Mucho bullshitto.