Fancy Dancer....JTB's Death

by peacefulpete 16 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  It might surprise some to find that John the Baptizer's (JTB) death is described a number of ways in the traditions of the Gospels, Josephus and the Mandeans (Jewish gnostic sect that followed JTB).

  First G.Mark says John was reluctantly killed soon after he baptizes Jesus by "Herod".

  This Herod is described Mark 6:

  14 King Herod heard of it, for Jesus'[a] name had become known. Some (also Luke, some mss use "He" to harmonize with Matthew) said, “John the Baptist[c] has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.” ...16 But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.(?)”

  Note: He is shocked by the reappearance/reincarnation/resurrection of JTB because he has beheaded him. (possibly due to the Jewish belief that beheading precluded resurrection)

  17 For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, (i.e. against his will) his brother Philip's wife, because he had married her. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.” 19 And Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to put him to death. But she could not, 20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed (mss reveal likely harmonization with Luke's use of the word in describing Herod reaction to JTB's resurrection, some mss read, 'doing many things'), and yet he heard him gladly.
  21 But an opportunity came (actually, at that season) when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his nobles and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. 22 For when Herodias's ("Herod's" Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Codex Bezae, also switch of "his" to "her" a likely attempt to correct the text historically) daughter herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests. And the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will give it to you.” 23 And he vowed to her, “Whatever you ask me, I will give you, up to half of my kingdom.” 24 And she went out and said to her mother, “For what should I ask?” And she said, “The head of John the Baptist.” 25 And she came in immediately with haste to the king and asked, saying, “I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.” 26 And the king was exceedingly sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her. 27 And immediately the king sent an executioner with orders to bring John's[d] head. He went and beheaded him in the prison 28 and brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl, and the girl gave it to her mother. 29 When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body and laid it in a tomb.

  The redactor whose work was named the G. of Matthew made a few changes. Notably he relocated the story to a later stage. Recall it is in only in Matt (11:2) that John is languishing in prison and only able to get stories of the miracles of Jesus and asks if he is the Messiah. This kinda/sorta offers an explanation as to why John was not his disciple. He was in prison! It doesn't however explain the question, since he was earlier the one who baptized Jesus and declared him the Messiah to his followers. We have potentially separate authors with different similar objectives, that of differentiating John and Jesus, as this is clearly and issue as the birthday scene testifies. John the Baptist was understood as having been equated with Jesus at some point. But lets read the birthday scene in Matt.:

  14 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, 2 and he said to his attendants, “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”
  3 Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s (Western manuscripts delete the name Philip, to correct the text ) wife, 4 for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her.” 5 Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered John a prophet. (Here Herod is no longer reluctant dupe but eager to kill John).
  6 On Herod’s birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for the guests and pleased Herod so much 7 that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. 8 Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” 9 The king was exceedingly sorry (editorial fatigue?, he has previously changed the motivation with Herod seeking to kill john but accidentally retained Mark's distress over doing it) but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted 10 and had John beheaded in the prison. 11 His head was brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who carried it to her mother. 12 John’s disciples came and took his body and buried it.

  The author of Luke drops the whole scene, likely as this author/redactor uses Josephus as a source in other sections and is aware that Josephus does not agree with the motive given by Mark and Matt.

  I will continue this later

  
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  It is also worth noting that Luke while following Matt in adding the later inquiry from John the Batist regarding whether he was the Messiah, he does not say he was in prison, rather John is depicted as free and continuing his baptizing (7:29).

  OK, so then moving forward. What about the Josephus reference to JTB?

  First, it must be noted that the brief reference exists in all the variants and appears to be referenced by Origen and certainly by Eusebius so it seems safe to say the passage existed by the middle third century. The reason that is in question is due to the quite flattering description of JTB, use of certain terminology and the rather out of place definition of baptism. It is for these reasons some scholars have for many years suspected the passage as a Christian interpolation, or at least parts thereof. (e.g.(6) Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: A Christian | Rivka Nir - Academia.edu) Ironically what convinces others that the passage is original is the way it contradicts the Gospel motivation for the killing.

  
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  [18.116] Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God as a just punishment of what Herod had done against John, who was called the Baptist.

  [18.117] For Herod had killed this good man, who had commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, righteousness towards one another and piety towards God. For only thus, in John's opinion, would the baptism he administered be acceptable to God, namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as it was taken for granted that their souls had already been purified by justice.

  
  

  [18.118] Now many people came in crowds to him, for they were greatly moved by his words. Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses might put them into his power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best to put him to death. In this way, he might prevent any mischief John might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late.

  
  

  [18.119] Accordingly John was sent as a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the castle I already mentioned, and was put to death. Now the Jews thought that the destruction of his army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure with him.

  
  

  Note the motivation is not his wife's anger nor his own evil designs but concern for rebellion because of the cultlike control John had over his followers. Also, John is removed from Antipas' presence and relocated to the castle in Galilee where he is seemingly immediately executed in an unknow fashion. No birthday, no dance.

  You, upon reading, must have noticed the doublet (JTB being reason for Antipas' loss) and the strange adoration of the JTB who is otherwise being described as a potential threat to the Roman order. Recall who Josephus was. He was a Jewish general that switched sides and commissioned to describe the history of his people for Vespasian. He spent his career promoting the Roman system and allegiance. Maybe you can see why some suspect the passage has been altered. Further, as described in the link above, the pious language of the meaning of baptism is more than peculiar in this setting.

  So what we have is a description of the death of JTB that differs from those found in the Gospels. The link above also offers a suggestion that the Christian who interpolated the JTB reference was from an early Ebionite or some other Jewish Christian sect and not from one that used a form of the Synoptics we are familiar with. Maybe, other gospels from that time do not mention it.

  It is worth mentioning the intertextual nature of the execution scene. It's been recognized for centuries to have been inspired by the Esther story and the Elijah/Jezebel animosity of the OT.
• 

  peacefulpete

  A side note is that the allusion to this Josephus reference in Origen is a bit puzzling.

  He ascribes to John a baptism ‘for the remission of sins’, which explicitly contradicts Josephus (‘if baptism was to be acceptable to God. They must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed’), and can merely tell us that John baptized Jesus, was called ‘Baptist’ and ‘promised purification to the people who were baptized’. It is only from the Christian tradition that he could acquire these details, as noted by Grant: ‘Origen made John’s baptism thoroughly Christian, claiming that he was simply relying on Josephus … The expression ‘‘for the remission of sins” is thoroughly Christian and Josephus did not use it.’ ( Rivka Nir‘,The First Christian Believer: In Search of John the Baptist)

  Was Origen fudging what he saw or did the text read differently at that point in time?
• 

  peacefulpete

  Now regarding the Mandean (Nazorean) version of the death of their greatest prophet. John is made to flee the anger of religious leaders from Palestine to the east. Later after 42 years of baptizing he is approached by a child who is a spirit. He leaves his body, which becomes one with the waters and ascends to the light.

  The Death of John (Yahya) in Mandaean tradition is an ascent to Heaven, not unlike that which some Christians had claimed for their founder. It exists in several versions, which differ (among other things) in the degree of reluctance John shows at leaving his body. In the right-hand volume of the Ginza Rba (“Great Treasure”), which seems to be the earliest of several versions, this concern does appear:

  Ginza Rba 5:4, 192-193. Then Manda d’Hayyi said to John, When I put my hand on you, you will depart from your body. John said to Manda d’Hayyi, I have seen you; now I will no longer be here. I have seen and reached you; now I beseech thee in truth. Do not curse me away from you, from the place from which you have come. Prepare me and give me instructions for the great place to which you are going. Have mercy upon me, and reveal to me the mysteries of the kings, about the Great Fruit of the Light, about the anvils and fruits of the Earth, against which they are pressed, about the anvils of the water, against which the living fire spreads, where the Life resides, which is earlier and greater than any other. [Manda d’Hayyi] undressed him from his clothes in the Jordan, he removed him from his garment of flesh and blood, he clothed him in a robe of splendor and covered him with a good pure turban of light. Manda d’Hayyi continued on his way to the place which is entirely aglow, to the place which is entirely light, and John went with him. The fish out of the sea and the birds of the two shores of the ocean rallied over the body of John and covered him. When John saw his body, he was troubled about it.

  The Mandaean Death of John Charles G Häberl Rutgers University
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  As an additional side note, the Gospel John does not mention JTB's death at all. However, the timeline in John distinctly contradicts the other timelines in the Synoptics. In G. John (chapter 3) JTB is depicted as flourishing and outspokenly endorsing Jesus as the Messiah after Jesus returns from Galilee, having fled there after the arrest of JTB according to Matt. This rather glaring chronological problem was observed long ago.

  Note verse 24.

  
  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.

  This obvious addition (vs 24) within the text doesn't actually address the issue but simply brushes it aside for the casual reader.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I briefly mentioned the manuscript variants regarding the name of the first wife of Herodias in Matthew. Likely this was an editor's attempt to sort the story out. Phillip the Tetrarch was never titled "Herod". The "Herod" whose wife Herod Antipas took was apparently Herod II.

  There is no contemporary evidence for Philip the Tetrarch's use of the name "Herod Philip" (Greek: Ἡρώδης Φίλιππος, Hērōdēs Philippos) as a dynastic title, as did occur with his brothers Herod Antipas and Herod Archelaus. Herod II is sometimes called "Herod Philip I" (because both the Gospel of Matthew[4] and Gospel of Mark[5] call the husband of Herodias "Philip"), and then Philip the Tetrarch is called "Herod Philip II".[6][7] Kokkinos says, "The stubborn insistence of many theologians in referring to Herod III as 'Herod Philip' is without any value...No illusory Herod Philip ever existed."[7][pp. 223–233]; [266] Philip the Tetrarch, "unlike his brothers, did not use Herod as a dynastic name."[8] Philip's half-brothers, Archelaus and Antipas, had adopted the name of Herod, "presumably" for a dynastic claim from Herod the Great.[9
  Herod II was the first husband of Herodias, and because both the Gospel of Matthew[3] and Gospel of Mark[4] state that Herodias was married to Philip, some scholars have argued that his name was actually Herod Philip. Because he was the grandson of the high priest Simon Boethus he is sometimes described as Herod Boethus, but there is no evidence he was actually thus called.[5]
• 

  peacefulpete

  The traditional name Salome in the story, (though unnamed in all the Gospels) described as a very young girl in the Greek. Also poses a problem. Salome known to history was the daughter of Herodias and Herod II.

  As Josephus reports in Jewish Antiquities (Book XVIII, Chapter 5, 4):

  Herodias [...] was married to Herod,[b] the son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest, who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod, her husband's brother by the father's side, he was tetrarch of Galilee; but her daughter Salome was married to Philip,[c] the son of Herod, and tetrarch of Trachonitis; and as he died childless, Aristobulus,[d] the son of Herod,[e] the brother of Agrippa, married her; they had three sons, Herod, Agrippa, and Aristobulus;[11]
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  researching
• 

  peacefulpete

  Hopefully it was understood I meant first husband of herodias not wife.