|
|
Email
your suggestions,
disagreements or any
other comments and
they will be responded
to without delay
|
No broadband? |
|
|
| New Testament Parallels to the Works of Josephus (Continued) John the Baptist: Mark 1.4-9 Luke 3.3-3:18 (Matthew 3.1-12) John said to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits worthy of repentance...." And the crowds asked him, "What then shall we do?" In reply he said, "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise." Herod, Herodias, Salome and the Head of John the Baptist:Luke 3.19 But Herod the Tetrarch, who had been rebuked by him because of Herodias, his brother's wife, and because of all the evil things that Herod had done, added to them all by shutting up John in prison. Luke 9.7-8 (Mark 6.14-16) Mark 6.17-29 (Matthew 14.1-12) When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed; and yet he liked to listen to him. But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and for the leaders of Galilee. When the daughter of Herodias 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." And he solemnly swore to her, "Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom." She went out and said to her mother, "What should I ask for?" She replied, "The head of John the baptizer." Immediately she rushed back to the king and requested, "I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter." The king was deeply grieved; yet out of regard for his oaths and for the guests, he did not want to refuse her. Immediately the king sent a soldier of the guard with orders to bring John's head. He went and beheaded him in the prison, brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl. Then the girl gave it to her mother. When his disciples heard about it, they came and took his body, and laid it in a tomb. Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the Baptist [the "dipper"]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt -- for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise -- believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret. And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod. Herodias and Salome: Herod and Herodias and Herod's First Wife and Aretas: About this time Aretas, the king of Petra, and Herod the Tetrarch had a quarrel on account of the following: Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas and had lived with her a great while; but once when he was on his way to Rome he lodged with his half-brother, also named Herod but who had a different mother, the high priest Simon's daughter. There he fell in love with Herodias, this latter Herod's wife, who was the daughter of their brother Aristobulus and the sister of Agrippa the Great. This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; she accepted, and an agreement was made for her to come to him as soon as he should return from Rome, one condition of this marriage being that he should divorce Aretas's daughter. So when he had made this agreement, he sailed to Rome; but when he had finished there and returned again, his wife, having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias, and before he knew that she knew of the plan, asked him to send her to Machaerus, a place on the border between the territories of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of any of her intentions. Accordingly Herod sent her there, thinking his wife had not perceived anything. But she had sent messages a good while before to Machaerus, which had been under the control of her father, and so all things necessary for her escape were made ready for her by the general of Aretas's army. By that means she soon came into Arabia, under the conduct of the several generals, who carried her from one to another successively; and soon she came to her father and told him of Herod's intentions. Aretas made this the start of his enmity toward Herod. He also had a quarrel with him about their boundaries in the area of Gabalis. So they raised armies on both sides and prepared for war, sending their generals to fight instead of themselves. And when they had joined battle, all Herod's army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip and joined the army, betrayed him. So Herod wrote about these affairs to Emperor Tiberius, who was very angry at the attempt made by Aretas and wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him and either to take him alive, and bring him in chains, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the command that Tiberius gave to the governor of Syria. Josephus in the Desert (Life 2): So I consigned myself to hardship, and underwent great difficulties, and went through them all. Nor did I content myself with the trying of these three only, for when I was informed that one whose name was Banus lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than what grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both night and day, to purify himself, I imitated him in those things, and continued with him three years. Comment In contrast with his usual
attitude toward popular leaders, Josephus is sympathetic towards John
the Baptist. One wonders what the difference is between John and the men
whom Josephus disparages as "deceivers" (apateônes) and
"enchanters" (goêtes), such as Thuedas and the
Egyptian. It isn't simply that John did not represent a direct threat to
Rome - Josephus always stresses the folly of those who do oppose Rome -
as many of the others also seemed apolitical. All of these, including
John, seemed to be killed solely because they had a large following,
which in itself was seen as a threat to those in power. There was room
for only one crowd and only one leader. We are left to conclude that
Josephus himself was touched favorably by the philosophy of John, just
as many of his countrymen were. While he was probably working from a
source that was itself positive toward John, his choice of that source
would have reflected his own attitude. In the New Testament John gives a "baptism of repentance," and insists angrily to those who come to him that they must "bear fruits worthy of repentance," an attitude which accords with Josephus' description. But he is also seen as providing "forgiveness of sins" after the repentance has been made, and the religious authorities, particularly in the Book of John, are suspicious that he is taking upon himself a divine role. His follower Jesus is more directly accused of this in the other Gospels. Josephus does not hint that John was announcing
the imminent coming of the Messiah, as the New Testament does. But
throughout his works Josephus deliberately hides references to the
Messiah (for example, in his account of Moses he leaves out Deuteronomy
18) - except to describe the notion as a primary cause of the war with
Rome, which was evidently well known to his non-Jewish audience (the
Roman historian Tacitus also mentions it), which is reason enough for
him to not want to provoke his audience by presenting the idea
positively. Yet it is difficult to understand the excitement of the
people in response to John simply based on the description of his
philosophy as given by Josephus. This may explain Josephus' favorable view of
John, for the Essenes are described in very much greater detail than the
other two major Jewish philosophies. Moreover, in his autobiography,
Josephus tells us that when he was a teenager he spent three years in
the desert with a man named Banus who resembles John in behavior
(as in Mark's description). This Banus clothed himself using only trees,
ate only food that was found in the wild, and bathed himself in cold
water several times a day. Yet this Banus was not an Essene, but a
unique individual. This experience seems to have given Josephus a
lasting sympathy for people who led this way of life, which is quite
probably why he speaks so favorably of John the Baptist. Herod the Tetrarch did illegally marry Herodias, Josephus tells us. Herodias was a grandchild of Herod the Great and Mariamne the Hasmonean, through Mariamne's son Aristobulus. Her grandfather had arranged her marriage while she was still a child to her cousin, his son Herod, the one whose mother was daughter of the priest Simon. (It much less confusing for us if everyone weren't named Herod.) This arranged marriage apparently wasn't satisfactory, as she left her "living husband" to marry her husband's step-brother, Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch of Galilee. Whether she simply left her first husband unofficially, thus committing polyandry, or whether she "divorced" him on her own initiative, the action was contrary to Jewish law, as a woman was, and still is not in Orthodox Judaism, allowed to divorce her husband without his written consent - i.e. he must divorce her. The story does not end there. Josephus tells us that this marriage of Herod the Tetrarch and Herodias led directly to war with the neighboring Arab king, King Aretas; for Herod had been married to Aretas' daughter. Whatever circumspection he had planned to gently divorce her without angering Aretas was thwarted when his wife got wind of his plans and prematurely fled to her father. This, coupled with a dispute over borders, led to the battle that destroyed Herod's army. It was this battle that the Jews of Galilee associated with Herod's treatment of John the Baptist, says Josephus. Why would they make such a connection? There are two possibilities. One is a simple chronological proximity: if the army's defeat occurred immediately after Herod's execution of John, the people would have made a direct link between the two events. But the other possibility is conceptual: if John had been killed by Herod some time earlier because he criticized Herod's marriage to Herodias, then seeing the army destroyed as the direct result of this marriage must have looked like a just punishment indeed. So even if Josephus does not say so, it is a plausible conjecture, even if we did not have the New Testament sources, that John had indeed criticized Herod's marriage and was executed for it. (Incidentally, this King Aretas is the same one mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:32.) Salome A
widely-known story is that of Salome, Herod's daughter who danced so
well that he promised to give her anything she asked for, whereupon she
asked for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. The Dating of John According to Josephus A puzzle for readers is that Josephus' description of John the Baptist occurs several paragraphs after his description of Jesus (18.5.2 116 compared to 18.3.3 63), implying that John came later in time; but it is important in the gospels that John appeared before Jesus so as to announce him. When, exactly, does Josephus state that John arose? He is not at all clear, as is often the case for events that occurred before his time. Even when Josephus is precise about dates he can frequently shown to be somewhat off (as when he gives the length of the reigns of Roman emperors). So any conclusions about John from this passage must be taken cum grano salis. Having said that, it does appear that Josephus is giving John's death as occurring in 36, which is at least 6 years later than what is expected from the New Testament, and after the crucifixion of Jesus. This date is seen as follows. Herod's battle with Aretas appears to have broken out soon after Herod's first wife, Aretas's daughter, left him. If so, then John did not have much time between the moment people were aware Herod was remarrying and the start of the battle with Aretas, for John was already dead before the battle. Josephus gives several indications that the battle occurred in 36:
So when did Herod marry Herodias? The only hint Josephus gives is that the pair first met when Herod was on his way to Rome, but unfortunately the only such journey we know about was when Herod visited Augustus to receive his inheritance in 6 CE. This is not very helpful. So the evidence of Josephus is that John the Baptist was executed in 36 CE, well after the time indicated by the gospels - but, it should be noted, still within the governorship of Pontius Pilate. The Argument of Saulnier However, the scholar Christiane Saulnier published a paper in 1984 arguing that the marriage can be placed in 24 to 28 using evidence from Josephus, an argument that Murphy-O'Connor, who is quite careful about dates, accepts in his book Paul: A Critical Life. So let us examine Saulnier's paper (C. Saulnier, Herode Antipas et Jean le Baptiste: Quelques remarqes sur les confusions chronlogiques do Flavius Josephus, Revue Biblique 91:362-376 (1984)). To establish the earliest date we can know they were married, Saulnier points out the passage at Antiquities 18.6.2 148 which refers to "Herodias, the wife of Herod the Tetrarch." The task is to date this passage. We know it could not be describing a time prior to 23, and Saulnier votes for a time close to that date. The date is derived from the travails of Agrippa the First, the brother of Herodias. According to Antiquities 18.6.1-4, Agrippa had been living in Rome since before the death of his father Herod the Great (4 BCE), and had become well acquainted with the family of the Emperor Tiberius. But when Agrippa's mother Berenice died he lost her sensible control over his free-spending nature and also her connections with the imperial family. In consequence he quickly ended up in debt. Agrippa had also lost his friend Drusus, Tiberius' only son, who had been poisoned in 23, and Tiberius, out of his grief, cut off contact with his son's old companions. Agrippa quickly spent his money trying to keep close to the emperor and soon found himself in debt with no one to help him. As a result, he left Rome to seek help with his family in Judea. But he grew suicidal, and only through the intervention of his wife Cypros and his sister Herodias was he persuaded to live on.. It is here that the reference to Herodias as wife of Herod the Tetrarch appears; the latter gives Agrippa an allowance for living expenses and a profitable job as a local director of commerce. Agrippa was resourceful, and eventually became solvent again. When he did, he sailed back to Rome, in 36, and once again made the acquaintance of Tiberius. So the remark about Herodias can be placed between 23 and 36. But where in this range? Saulnier attributes Agrippa's departure from Rome as due to the death of Drusus. But it is the death of his mother Berenice that caused Agrippa his money problems, and we do not have a date for her demise. The death of Drusus could have occurred years before, and Josephus might be mentioning it at this point only because it is logical, not chronological. We simply don't know the time between Drusus' death and Agrippa's departure from Rome. Saulnier offers a number of speculations about Herod's unexplained trip to Rome, the source of his enmity with Agrippa, etc. These do not, however, provide any new evidence that can be used for a chronology. What we do know (Antiquities 18.6.2 150) is that "no great while" after Herod the Tetrarch gave Agrippa an allowance and a job, Agrippa attempted to alleviate his money woes by dealing with the Roman governor Flaccus; and that Flaccus was in power from 32 to 35. This again supports the idea that it was the early 30s (31-35) when Agrippa came to Judea in debt, and so there is no evidence Herodias' marriage took place much earlier. The event that limits the latest possible marriage date, the battle between Aretas and Herod, is then addressed by Saulnier. Josephus implied this battle occurred fairly soon after Herod's separation from Aretas' daughter. In- between these two events, John was executed (assuming he did criticize the new marriage as the gospels relate). Thus, Saulnier asks whether the date of this battle might have been well before the year 36 in which Josephus places it. If we put aside more speculations, the concrete proposal Saulnier makes is that Josephus has confused the occasion of Vitellius' presence in Jerusalem for the Passover of 37, when the news of Tiberius' death was received. Josephus states Vitellius was marching to attack Aretas on Tiberius orders following the battle with Herod; but Saulnier asks why Vitellius, stationed in Damascus, would march through Jerusalem to attack an Arab leader headquartered in Petra (Jordan)? Perhaps this is explained by the exact point of attack, which is unknown, but probabilities dictate that this point has some weight. Instead, suggests Saulnier, Vitellius was in Jerusalem to keep control of matters after his removal of Pilate , which evidently occurred in February or early March of that same year 37 (because Tiberius had died by the time Pilate arrived in Rome). To support this, Saulnier points out that Josephus records two visits by Vitellius to Jerusalem during a Passover, once when Pilate was removed (Antiquities 18.4.3 90) and once when he was marching against Aretas. But these would have been the same Passover: both events are dated by Tiberius' death in 37. He suggests Josephus separated a single event into two and was incorrect about the timing of Vitellius' attack against Aretas, which occurred, by this reasoning, prior to the Parthian war. The confusion is made plausible by Josephus' lack of good sources for the period and his general laxness with identifying the proper synchronicity and order of events. Against this idea of the mistaken Passover there are the following points:
|