Mark 1,14

[Newton's Cat]

Mark 1,14 doesn't say that John was "put in prison" - PARADOTHENAI doesn't mean "put in prison" in this context. Why haven't the scholars picked up on this, its so obvious?

And why do the English translations of 1,11 read "am well-pleased" when the scholars know that the Greek really reads "was well-pleased"?

It seems to me that almost all scholars who are believers, and even many who are not, are "blinkered" when it comes to getting through to the sense of the text.

I mean - its obvious to me that the original author of Mark was an out and out atheist making an attack on religion - and that his work was calculatedly and skillfully altered and large chunks added to the text - mainly by one individual (who had bizarre sensibilities focused on sex and violence).

[Toto]

Young's Literal Translation has:

Mark 1:14 And after the delivering up of John, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of the reign of God,

This is sometimes translated as "After John was arrested" or "after John was taken into custody."

If "delivered up" (to the authorities) does not mean arrested, what do you think it refers to?

I'm not clear in any case how this is significant to your thesis. Why do you think that the original of Mark was written by an atheist? How could you recover the original text? Other than the crucifixion, there is not a lot of violence in Mark, and hardly any sex (compared to the Roman and Greek works of the period.)

[Newton's Cat]

Young's Literal Translation has:



This is sometimes translated as "After John was arrested" or "after John was taken into custody."

If "delivered up" (to the authorities) does not mean arrested, what do you think it refers to?

I'm not clear in any case how this is significant to your thesis. Why do you think that the original of Mark was written by an atheist? How could you recover the original text? Other than the crucifixion, there is not a lot of violence in Mark, and hardly any sex (compared to the Roman and Greek works of the period.)

Mark 1,14

Kai meta to paradothhnai Iwannhn

John (Iwannhn) is the subject, the doer of the action. The sense is 'after the "handing over" by/from John' (to Jesus). The sense is a "handing over" of authority. If the sense IS the idea of being taken into custody then John is pictured as surrendering himself to custody - not being arrested. With this sense the reader is suddenly presented with an image of John being taken into custody by unspecified persons at his own instigation. The story further on in Mark of John's treatment at the hands of Herod was a later interpolation. Verse 14 existed before the text made any reference to his arrest.

[S.C.Carlson]

Mark 1,14

Kai meta to paradothhnai Iwannhn

John (Iwannhn) is the subject, the doer of the action. The sense is 'after the "handing over" by/from John' (to Jesus).

Just to clarify, the verb here is an aorist passive infinitive. In the passive voice, the subject is the recipient of the action.

Stephen

[sharon45]

The beginnings of mark especially are like reading a story written by an impatient child. The text just skips along not wishing to give enough details or explanations in order to make a properly structured accounting.

It combines a haphazard joining of both Isaiah and of Malachi even though these passages are clearly not in reference to the same thing and of course out of place in this newer telling. Nowhere is it mentioned as to why there is even a need for someone like john and of the supposed purposes to baptizing people. Where is this really scripturally based?

After being baptized, jesus goes to the desert and is supposedly tested by Satan, but there isn't any real reason given as to how and why this is even taking place.

There isn't even any indication that john is in danger of plots from any outside forces let alone shown to be doing anything wrong worthy of being arrested for.

[Newton's Cat]

Just to clarify, the verb here is an aorist passive infinitive. In the passive voice, the subject is the recipient of the action.

Stephen

Ah - someone who knows!

My question now is:

Can it be said with certainty that 'to paradothhnai tov Iwannhn' really DOES mean "the arrest of John"? Could it not mean a "handing over" of something (authority?) from John to Jesus by means of an external agency? The sudden introduction of the arrest of John presupposes that the reader already knows the general storyline (it could be, of course, that there was an introduction to the Gospel, now lost, that did indeed give this information).

Is there any scholarly doubt as to the meaning of this phrase? If the reader was not aware of the details of John's arrest as described later would the reader automatically read it as John being arrested? The reader would then wonder - arrested by who? The failure of the author to clarify this, if it does mean "the arrest of John", is puzzling. Why is paradothhnai used?

Could a slight alteration of the suffix change the meaning to something like the sense I'm suggesting?

And so on ....

[Newton's Cat]

Just to clarify, the verb here is an aorist passive infinitive. In the passive voice, the subject is the recipient of the action.

Stephen

The storyline describes ALL the people of Judaea and Jerusalem flocking out en mass to John and being converted. Jesus comes along from Galilee and is baptised - then - it blandly says "after John was arrested" !!!!

Like - there is something odd here!

[Newton's Cat]

The beginnings of mark especially are like reading a story written by an impatient child. The text just skips along not wishing to give enough details or explanations in order to make a properly structured accounting.

It combines a haphazard joining of both Isaiah and of Malachi even though these passages are clearly not in reference to the same thing and of course out of place in this newer telling. Nowhere is it mentioned as to why there is even a need for someone like john and of the supposed purposes to baptizing people. Where is this really scripturally based?

After being baptized, jesus goes to the desert and is supposedly tested by Satan, but there isn't any real reason given as to how and why this is even taking place.

There isn't even any indication that john is in danger of plots from any outside forces let alone shown to be doing anything wrong worthy of being arrested for.

Like in verse 40 Jesus shows a deep and moving sympathy for the leper, heals him, then - suddenly gets "heavy" with him in verse 43

Literal translation:

'And sternly admonishing him immediately he put him out'

Verses 43 onwards were, so it seems to me, inserted by someone with a negative attitude towards verses 40-42.

All the way through Mark there seems to be an interplay between two very different ways of thinking. The original story was deliberately and calculatedly altered - so it seems to me.

I even suspect it was Simon of Cyrene on the cross and not Jesus.

[Vinnie]

""""""""""""I mean - its obvious to me that the original author of Mark was an out and out atheist making an attack on religion - and that his work was calculatedly and skillfully altered and large chunks added to the text - mainly by one individual (who had bizarre sensibilities focused on sex and violence)."""""""""""

?????

[S.C.Carlson]

Can it be said with certainty that 'to paradothhnai tov Iwannhn' really DOES mean "the arrest of John"? Could it not mean a "handing over" of something (authority?) from John to Jesus by means of an external agency? The sudden introduction of the arrest of John presupposes that the reader already knows the general storyline (it could be, of course, that there was an introduction to the Gospel, now lost, that did indeed give this information).

The latest edition of the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines this verb as "to convey someth in which one has a relatively strong personal interest: hand over, give (over), deliver, entrust." When it is used for a person, it has a technical meaning of surrendering or delivering someone into custody.

In Mark 1:14, "John" is the subject of the passive infinitive, which means that he is one being handed over. It does not mean that something is being handed over from him.

The story of John the Baptist and his execution was known outside of the gospels, for example, in Josephus the Jewish historian, and even if reader weren't familiar about what happened, they'll become so at Mark 6:17 ("For Herod himself had sent men who arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison..."), which is a lot more explicit than 1:14.

The idea that the Gospel of Mark is missing its beginning is not widely held but there are some respectable scholars who have advocated this. Clayton Croy's book [i]The Mutilation of Mark is a good book to read if you want to learn more about it.

Is there any scholarly doubt as to the meaning of this phrase? If the reader was not aware of the details of John's arrest as described later would the reader automatically read it as John being arrested? The reader would then wonder - arrested by who? The failure of the author to clarify this, if it does mean "the arrest of John", is puzzling. Why is paradothhnai used?

I would suspect that the readers' background information would help a lot, particularly since there's evidence that many of the earliest Christian leaders, including Peter, used to belong to the Baptist's sect.

As to why the bare term was used, I think it was to foreshadow the handing over of Jesus. Several words in the (surviving) beginning of the gospel get repeated later during the passion, and "to hand over" is one of them. Later on in Mark, Jesus will predict his being handed over, Judas will hand Jesus over to the chief priests, the chief priests will hand Jesus over to Pilate, and Pilate will hand him over to the soldiers to be crucified. Lots of "handing over"s in Mark.

Could a slight alteration of the suffix change the meaning to something like the sense I'm suggesting?

I would expect more like instead of the bare subject Ioannen that a prepositional phrase apo Ioannou be used or possiblly an aorist active infinitive paradounai.

Stephen

[Newton's Cat]

The latest edition of the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines this verb as "to convey someth in which one has a relatively strong personal interest: hand over, give (over), deliver, entrust." When it is used for a person, it has a technical meaning of surrendering or delivering someone into custody.

In Mark 1:14, "John" is the subject of the passive infinitive, which means that he is one being handed over. It does not mean that something is being handed over from him.

The story of John the Baptist and his execution was known outside of the gospels, for example, in Josephus the Jewish historian, and even if reader weren't familiar about what happened, they'll become so at Mark 6:17 ("For Herod himself had sent men who arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison..."), which is a lot more explicit than 1:14.

The idea that the Gospel of Mark is missing its beginning is not widely held but there are some respectable scholars who have advocated this. Clayton Croy's book [i]The Mutilation of Mark is a good book to read if you want to learn more about it.



I would suspect that the readers' background information would help a lot, particularly since there's evidence that many of the earliest Christian leaders, including Peter, used to belong to the Baptist's sect.

As to why the bare term was used, I think it was to foreshadow the handing over of Jesus. Several words in the (surviving) beginning of the gospel get repeated later during the passion, and "to hand over" is one of them. Later on in Mark, Jesus will predict his being handed over, Judas will hand Jesus over to the chief priests, the chief priests will hand Jesus over to Pilate, and Pilate will hand him over to the soldiers to be crucified. Lots of "handing over"s in Mark.



I would expect more like instead of the bare subject Ioannen that a prepositional phrase apo Ioannou be used or possiblly an aorist active infinitive paradounai.

Stephen

Thanks for the info. You've cleared up something I've been puzzling about for a long time (and shown me that Greek "ain't so easy to get the hang of"). I was going by the fact that this phrase was marked as applying to:

'The accusative (or other case) and infinitive. Here what is in English the subject of the verb (the doer of the action) is put in the accusative (or other) case and the verb itself in the infinitive'.

I see that from now on I need to "consult the scholars" before I develop complex theories based on my limited understanding of Greek.

[Vorkosigan]

The beginnings of mark especially are like reading a story written by an impatient child. The text just skips along not wishing to give enough details or explanations in order to make a properly structured accounting.

Quit reading it as history, and start reading it as fiction. Then you'll see that John functions as the character in the Greek drama whose job is to announce the action and introduce the characters, and is then hurried offstage.

It combines a haphazard joining of both Isaiah and of Malachi even though these passages are clearly not in reference to the same thing and of course out of place in this newer telling.

Perhaps the versification is wrong. What if it reads:

1: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God as it is written in Isaiah the prophet

2 "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way;

Then you have the reference to evangelion in Is 40:9, and then the Malachi/Exodus quote. Works fine that way.

Nowhere is it mentioned as to why there is even a need for someone like john and of the supposed purposes to baptizing people. Where is this really scripturally based?

No. So ask yourself, what are the possible functions of Mark's narrative. Since baptism was an early Christian activity, and Christians were text-oriented, it follows that they probably created a text as a baptismal/recruiting document.

Another thing you might want to thin about: Jesus is the adopted son of God in Mark, just as Paul's baptism made believers the sons of God (Rom 8). So John is probably a historical character whose salient feature, baptism, made him perfect for borrowing and insertion into the narrative to perform this function.

After being baptized, jesus goes to the desert and is supposedly tested by Satan, but there isn't any real reason given as to how and why this is even taking place.

The juxtaposition of wilderness and water and baptism...After initiate is baptized in water, he is taken out the world into the Wilderness. See Leach's excellent discussion of how all this works in his article in The Literary Guide to the Bible (Kermode and Alter).

There isn't even any indication that john is in danger of plots from any outside forces let alone shown to be doing anything wrong worthy of being arrested for.

Bingo. So obviously John has another function. In Greek novels it was common to use historical characters and build the story around real events, just as modern historical novels do today.

Vorkosigan

[neilgodfrey]

The storyline describes ALL the people of Judaea and Jerusalem flocking out en mass to John and being converted. Jesus comes along from Galilee and is baptised - then - it blandly says "after John was arrested" !!!!

Like - there is something odd here!

You're right. It is fiction. The author is setting up a scene much like a perfect Adam and Eve in paradise, or the Israelites at Mt Sinai all promising to do anything God tells them to do, or the idyllic beginnings of the Kingdom of Solomon where every person sat under his vine and fig tree .... all followed by stories that proceeded to tear apart such appearances and hit readers with the need for being "true people of God".

As for John's role, I wonder if the author was influenced by the Greek legend of the hitherto greatest of all seers, Calchis. It was foretold that he would die when he eventually met an even greater seer to come after him -- Mopsus, son of the deity Apollo. If so, he ensured John outdid Calchis since Calchis died in self-pity while John in heroic martyrdom.

[TedM]

Quit reading it as history, and start reading it as fiction. Then you'll see that John functions as the character in the Greek drama whose job is to announce the action and introduce the characters, and is then hurried offstage.

John likely WAS announcing the coming kingdom of God, and that kingdom included Messiac expectations in people's minds, so that is probable history.
John WAS arrested as Herod says, so what you say is a case of being 'hurried off stage" has a historical basis. With a very popular John suddenly gone from the scene (a martyr no less), is it quite plausible that one of his followers would have attempted to carry on his mission, and people would have noticed. The Nazarene connection to the early Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and the early Christian practice of baptism both provide some basis for the idea that Jesus arose out of a sect similar to JTB's. According to GJohn Jesus' disciples baptised for a while just like Johns, and were compared to them!



Perhaps the versification is wrong. What if it reads:

1: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God as it is written in Isaiah the prophet

2 "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way;

Then you have the reference to evangelion in Is 40:9, and then the Malachi/Exodus quote. Works fine that way.

Exactly. This expectation existed, so if someone came along who appeared to fulfill it, it is no wonder that Mark would have mentioned it.


No. So ask yourself, what are the possible functions of Mark's narrative. Since baptism was an early Christian activity, and Christians were text-oriented, it follows that they probably created a text as a baptismal/recruiting document.

Another thing you might want to thin about: Jesus is the adopted son of God in Mark, just as Paul's baptism made believers the sons of God (Rom 8). So John is probably a historical character whose salient feature, baptism, made him perfect for borrowing and insertion into the narrative to perform this function.

You may also want to ask yourself why Christians also had a baptism practice in the first place--likely before Paul and before GMark. The fact that John's name highlights his ministry of baptism suggests that baptism perhaps was not so common among the Jewish sects over the centuries. Given JTB's popularity, it is reasonable that the early Christian sect (called Nazerenes in Acts) was influenced--maybe even strongly by John the Baptist's message.


There isn't even any indication that john is in danger of plots from any outside forces let alone shown to be doing anything wrong worthy of being arrested for.

Bingo. So obviously John has another function. In Greek novels it was common to use historical characters and build the story around real events, just as modern historical novels do today.

Failure to mention historical events that readers would have been aware of already (in fact the author sees no need to explain 'after John was arrested/delivered') is not an indication of fiction. Sure, Mark starts of with John to introduce Jesus as the expected Messiah, but that works fine as a historical event even if some details are mythologized since it is likely that both the message of JTB regarding a coming kingdom and the early Christianity--JTB connection existed and would therefore have been well known. Mark's later references to Jesus as being suspected of being 'the One' and JTB being 'Elijah' could just as well have been historical as fiction given what we know about the times.

ted

[neilgodfrey]

John likely WAS announcing the coming kingdom of God, and that kingdom included Messiac expectations in people's minds, so that is probable history.
John WAS arrested as Herod says, so what you say is a case of being 'hurried off stage" has a historical basis. With a very popular John suddenly gone from the scene (a martyr no less), is it quite plausible that one of his followers would have attempted to carry on his mission, and people would have noticed.

But doesn't the only extra-biblical evidence for the existence, arrest and popularity of John the Baptist (there is no extra-biblical evidence that he was a messianic or kingdom of God preacher) place him somewhere around 36 c.e.? http://homepages.which.net/~radical.faith/background/josephus2.htm

Does not this suggest that JTB was "hurried on stage" so fast he slipped back a few years, so that we are left with the full appropriateness of the non-historical "hurried off stage" turn of phrase?

Arguments that Josephus was confused about his dates and that attempt to establish the historical value of the gospels by finding ways to reconcile them with presumed confusions in Josephus are faith-based circularities. If Josephus really was confused about his dates and order of events then we are left without any basis for independently confirming the historicity of the gospel narrative on this point.

[TedM]

But doesn't the only extra-biblical evidence for the existence, arrest and popularity of John the Baptist (there is no extra-biblical evidence that he was a messianic or kingdom of God preacher) place him somewhere around 36 c.e.? http://homepages.which.net/~radical.faith/background/josephus2.htm

Does not this suggest that JTB was "hurried on stage" so fast he slipped back a few years, so that we are left with the full appropriateness of the non-historical "hurried off stage" turn of phrase?

It would if 36c.e. is correct, but that seems questionable to me, and not only because Josephus can't always be trusted with his dates. Please correct me if I am wrong here: The reason 36c.e. is usually considered the most reasonable interpretation is that Josephus appears to place the war with Aretas right after the return of his daughter (Herod's wife), and that war took place in 36c.e.

In Antiquities 18.5 Josephus writes of Aretas' learning about Herod's plans to divorce Aretas' daughter:

So Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with him about their limits at the country of Gamalitis. The 'this the first occasion' is the discovery of divorce plans by Aretas. The other quarrel was after this "first occasion", and was over land boundaries. Josephus then describes the war. If the sequence is as described, the war may have not been as immediate as is often thought. It isn't reasonable to assume that the war began only because of Areta's daughter, since Josephus mentions the quarrel about Gamalitis, and it isn't reasonable to assume that this quarrel immediately followed the situation with his daughter. It is reasonable to conclude that some time elapsed before the war actually took place in 36c.e. That time could well have been a number of years. This could therefore place John's criticism AND death at a date well before 36c.e.

Would the Jews still blame the loss in the war on Herod's treatment of John some 7-8 years after John was dead? It would if John criticized Herod's personal life (which Josephus definitely implies) since Josephus makes clear that Herod's marriage situation the first occasion of enmity that led Aretas to declare war on Herod. The link in the minds of the Jews would likely have been loud and clear.


Bernard Muller points out at http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appa.html that Mark 6 may further suggest an earlier date:
"When the daughter of Herodias [young Salome (whose father was Herodias' previous husband), later married to Philip, the king (tetrarch) of Cesarea Philippi (Ant., XVIII, V, 4), who died in 33-34C.E (Ant., XVIII, IV, 6). Why later?Simply, Salome could not have performed a lascivious dance in front of a court of men as a married woman (to a king!) or as a royal widow. That would have been most improper, even scandalous] ` came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests. The king said to the girl, [a married woman or widow could not be called a "girl"] ` " ... At once the girl hurried in to the king ... He presented it to the girl, and she gave it to her mother."

This would place Salome's dance before 33-34c.e. since she hadn't yet even married a man who died in 33-34c.e.

ted

[Amaleq13]

The 'this the first occasion' is the discovery of divorce plans by Aretas. The other quarrel was after this "first occasion", and was over land boundaries.

They appear to me to be simultaneous given the "also" but I'm not sure what "made this the first occasion of his enmity" is supposed to mean. Does it mean "made this his primary complaint though he also had a border dispute with Herod"? I certainly don't see any basis for you to place this quarrel over boundaries "after" the divorce issue. It reads to me as a reference to another motivation, quite possibly of longer standing, to pick a fight with Herod. In fact, I have to wonder if it wasn't the real reason and the divorce issue was just used as an excuse.

It isn't reasonable to assume that the war began only because of Areta's daughter, since Josephus mentions the quarrel about Gamalitis, and it isn't reasonable to assume that this quarrel immediately followed the situation with his daughter.

Could you be more specific in explaining why this isn't reasonable because it doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all.

It would if John criticized Herod's personal life (which Josephus definitely implies) since Josephus makes clear that Herod's marriage situation the first occasion of enmity that led Aretas to declare war on Herod.

The passage about the Baptist is quite explicit about the reason Herod had him executed and it implies nothing about any criticism John offered against his personal life. It says he perceived the Baptist as too popular and, as a result, a potential inspiration for rebellion. Herod found it prudent to get rid of him before that could occur.

[neilgodfrey]

Would the Jews still blame the loss in the war on Herod's treatment of John some 7-8 years after John was dead? It would if John criticized Herod's personal life (which Josephus definitely implies) since Josephus makes clear that Herod's marriage situation the first occasion of enmity that led Aretas to declare war on Herod. The link in the minds of the Jews would likely have been loud and clear.


Bernard Muller points out at http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appa.html that Mark 6 may further suggest an earlier date:

This would place Salome's dance before 33-34c.e. since she hadn't yet even married a man who died in 33-34c.e.

ted

Josephus says that Herod's fear of John was nothing more than the usual royal fear of a common rabble rouser having control over a mob. I see no implication in Josephus at all that he contains some allusion to John's criticism as per the gospels. The only way to see that would be to bring to Josephus an assumption of gospel historicity. I think it stretches plausibility to suggest such a king would be seriously worried or care one bit or even find out if some commoner said his marriage was contra divine law, but someone with sway over a mob, now that was different.

But the gospel story, which makes no mention of "Salome" by the way, is a classic piece of hellenistic romance. The passage about John in Josephus, on the other hand, does give a plausible historical motive for John's arrest and execution. If there were other reasons for reading the gospel story as history in the same sense that Josephus is read as history then perhaps reconciling or judging between them 'as history' would be an issue. But just as no one would see any point in attempting to harmonize Pseudo-Callisthenes' Alexander Romance with Arrian's and Curtius's histories of Alexander I personally see no reason to attempt anything similar between the gospels and Josephus. Story tellers and ancient theologians and philosopher myth-makers all regularly used historical names and real places to add touches of plausibility and realism. But any genuine historicity contained within can only be established if independently confirmed, -- especially when much else 'within' is preoccupied with the supernatural and beings and actions that can never be tested by normal historical rules.

I'm quite happy to accept the historicity of the gospel account about John's death if I could find historical evidence for anything more than the names and barest narrative backdrop employed in the gospel story. And we haven't begun here to address Zindler's not insubtantial case that even the John passage in Josephus was itself an early interpolation by someone from a John the Baptist cult.

[TedM]

Josephus says that Herod's fear of John was nothing more than the usual royal fear of a common rabble rouser having control over a mob. I see no implication in Josephus at all that he contains some allusion to John's criticism as per the gospels.

The question is what did John do that upset Herod? Did he aspire to political power but not criticize Herod? Did Herod just think he did? It's possible, but it seems more likely that John was critical of Herod for something. Josphus writes:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God

This comes right after the paragraph which describes Herod's decision to divorce his wife and marry his brother's wife--something the pious would have seen as very unvirtuous. It is quite reasonable that this is one of the things John criticized Herod for. One doesn't need the gospels to deduce this as perhaps likely.


I think it stretches plausibility to suggest such a king would be seriously worried or care one bit or even find out if some commoner said his marriage was contra divine law, but someone with sway over a mob, now that was different.

"Someone with sway over a mob"--that's what John was! That's why it isn't a stretch to see this as a likelihood.


Story tellers and ancient theologians and philosopher myth-makers all regularly used historical names and real places to add touches of plausibility and realism. But any genuine historicity contained within can only be established if independently confirmed, -- especially when much else 'within' is preoccupied with the supernatural and beings and actions that can never be tested by normal historical rules.

I agree. I was responding primarily to your claim that Josephus' account provides evidence that Jesus' couldn't have had a ministry when Mark says he did--right after John. Here's what you wrote:

But doesn't the only extra-biblical evidence for the existence, arrest and popularity of John the Baptist (there is no extra-biblical evidence that he was a messianic or kingdom of God preacher) place him somewhere around 36 c.e.? http://homepages.which.net/~radical...d/josephus2.htm

Does not this suggest that JTB was "hurried on stage" so fast he slipped back a few years, so that we are left with the full appropriateness of the non-historical "hurried off stage" turn of phrase?


My response last night was to provide an explanation from Josephus' own account for why 36c.e is questionable date for JTB death even if we can date the war to 36c.e despite Josephus' habit of mixing up dates prior to his own life. You certainly can reject the gospel account with regard to the reason John was killed, and you can accept the idea that the John-Jesus link is entirely fictional, but one of the reasons you've given--the date of JTB's death--may not be as strong as you seem to think. That is the main point I addressed in my last post. My 'clue' from Mark could just be the product of a clever "Mark" or later interpolator that figured out from Josephus that Salome would have been unmarried around 28AD, so it isn't any kind of proof, but what is your response to my analysis of Josephus himself?

I'm quite happy to accept the historicity of the gospel account about John's death if I could find historical evidence for anything more than the names and barest narrative backdrop employed in the gospel story.

How about the argument I made against the date you gave?

And we haven't begun here to address Zindler's not insubtantial case that even the John passage in Josephus was itself an early interpolation by someone from a John the Baptist cult.

I haven't seen that but the insertion seems not out of place to me: Josephus indicates reasons for a war. He then links John to the perceived reason for the loss of the war. His description of John is consistent with the reason to introduce John at the point in which he is introduced. Unless there is a good reason to reject the passage then any explanation for why it might make sense that it was an interpolation is not any better than using computers to find codes in the bible, as far as I'm concerned. Does he provide a good reason to reject the passage?

ted

[Amaleq13]

The question is what did John do that upset Herod?


"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he 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. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him." (18.5.2, Whiston translation)

It's possible, but it seems more likely that John was critical of Herod for something.

Why wouldn't Josephus have mentioned it? You seem to me to be reading a great deal into the passage.

It is quite reasonable that this is one of the things John criticized Herod for. One doesn't need the gospels to deduce this as perhaps likely.

It is a reasonable possibility but there is nothing in Josephus to establish it as "likely".

How about the argument I made against the date you gave?

What argument? You made assertions but offered no substantiation for them. You asserted that the border dispute took place after the divorce issue and that some time elapsed between the divorce issue and the war. Josephus' "also" suggests the disputes were co-existing at the same time and there does not appear to be any reason to assume a delay in starting the war.

Does he [Zindler] provide a good reason to reject the passage?

Zindler gives four reasons to doubt the passage:

1) Josephus clearly considered Macherus to be under the control of Aretas but the JBap passage has Herod sending JBap to Macherus to be executed while Herod was fighting with Aretas.

2) Herod's "bad end" is attributed to his killing of the Baptist while, elsewhere, Josephus attibutes it to "listening to a woman's frivolous chatter".

3) The JBap passage is not repeated during any of the Herod commentary in War of the Jews

4) JBap is not listed in an ancient Greek table of contents for Josehus but is listed in a later Latin version.

[TedM]

They appear to me to be simultaneous given the "also" but I'm not sure what "made this the first occasion of his enmity" is supposed to mean. Does it mean "made this his primary complaint though he also had a border dispute with Herod"? I certainly don't see any basis for you to place this quarrel over boundaries "after" the divorce issue. It reads to me as a reference to another motivation, quite possibly of longer standing, to pick a fight with Herod. In fact, I have to wonder if it wasn't the real reason and the divorce issue was just used as an excuse.

Why are you reading things into it that aren't there Amaleq13? In this particular translation it clearly says there was a first occasion of enmity and also there was another issue between Herod and Aretas that led to the war. The most literal interpretation is the one I've given. "Also" doesn't mean "simultaneous". Also means "in addition to"-- it is silent about the time because the time element was already dealt with by using the word "first". "First" could mean "primary" in importance, but why not just say "primary"? Then you go and suggest that actually the land issue was the primary reason! Certainly things can be read into differently, but the most literal reading is simply what he says: The first occasion of enmity was the divorce issue, and after that was there was also a land issue. IF the divorce issue was first as he says, then it follows that the land issue came later.


It isn't reasonable to assume that the war began only because of Areta's daughter, since Josephus mentions the quarrel about Gamalitis, and it isn't reasonable to assume that this quarrel immediately followed the situation with his daughter.

Could you be more specific in explaining why this isn't reasonable because it doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all.

I see a few possibilities here: The quarrel over land could have been existing and just made worse from the daughter situation. I reject that because Josephus specifies that the divorce was the first occasion of enmity. Or it could have been created as a result of the daughter situation. I think that is possible. Or it just happened independently some time later. All of these are possible. What I don't think is likely is that it happened immediately afterwards, because if that had been the case it is awkward for Josephus to have made a point about the divorce issue as being the 'first occasion of enmity'. This description implies a sequence AND a passage of time. It's like saying "I first became enemies with Joe when he did X". If the two events were simultaneous it would have made more sense for Josephus to have left out 'first occasion of enmity' and just said that it--along with a land dispute--led to the war. That's why I say it isn't reasonable to assume these things all happened simultaneously. It reads like an enmity that escalated, initially sparked from the spurning of Aretas' daughter.

At the least we can't put a date on the divorce and the murder, so an assertion that the death occurred in 36c.e is really just a guess that is no better than one that is in sinc with the timing in the gospels.

The passage about the Baptist is quite explicit about the reason Herod had him executed and it implies nothing about any criticism John offered against his personal life. It says he perceived the Baptist as too popular and, as a result, a potential inspiration for rebellion. Herod found it prudent to get rid of him before that could occur.

Political rebellions involve dissent. Dissent comes from criticism over SOMETHING. According to Josephus John was concerned about individual virtue. To NOT exploit a marriage to his brother's wife would be strange, wouldn't it? I can't prove it, but why does that seem so unlikely to you--especially given that Josephus had just talked about it, places Herod in an unfavorable light, John in a good light, blames Herod's personal life in part for the war, and then says that the Jews blamed the war on Herod's murder or John? Why is this connection such a stretch to you? Mark's reason fits perfectly.

ted

[TedM]

Zindler gives four reasons to doubt the passage:

Let's take a look

1) Josephus clearly considered Macherus to be under the control of Aretas but the JBap passage has Herod sending JBap to Macherus to be executed while Herod was fighting with Aretas.

The passage doesn't say JBap was sent there while Herod was fighting with Aretas. It doesn't say WHEN Jbap was sent there at all. So we don't know who had control of the castle when Jbap was sent there. While it is true the passage says that Macherus was 'subject to her(Aretas') father' do we know exactly what that means? Josphus also describes Macherus as a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod, and we know from Josephus elsewhere that Herod the Great had rebuilt the Hasmonean fortress here and constructed an elaborate palace there before Herod Antipas, and that Rome took it from the Jews later on, after Herod Antipas. When did the Arabs get and then lose control? Josephus never tells us. Possibly Herod always had control of the palace, and the 'subject to her father' is wrong or misleading--maybe the daughter actually went to the border at Macherus (the passage doesn't say she went to the castle at all!), or Herod had gained back control of the palace by the time JBap was sent there later.

Since the passage regarding JBap specically references Macherus as the place mentioned before it seems especially dumb for an interpolator to have not noticed the reference to it being 'subject to her father'. He could have chosen some other place. Clearly JBap was killed somewhere. Does it make sense to make up a place other than where he was really killed? I don't think so. What purpose would that serve? It's problematic, I agree, but for me it falls into the category of 'we don't have all the information to make sense of it' rather than 'this was a deliberate interpolation'.

From what little I just read this is seen as a clever interpolation because it sounds like Josephus. Why would clever interpolation include such a dumb and unnecessary reference? It doesn't make sense.

2) Herod's "bad end" is attributed to his killing of the Baptist while, elsewhere, Josephus attibutes it to "listening to a woman's frivolous chatter".

I can't find the Josephus attribution, but the attribution in the JBap passage isn't Josephus', its the Jewish people who followed JBap. Is the "chatter" attribute talking about this war? If not, it's compariing apples to oranges. If by "bad end" it is talking about Herod's death, that is a different issue that didn't happen for another 5 years.


3) The JBap passage is not repeated during any of the Herod commentary in War of the Jews

I"m getting lazy--I couldn't tell whether The War of the Jews says anything of the war in question between Aretas and Herod. If it doesn't, then we wouldn't expect JBap to be mentioned.

4) JBap is not listed in an ancient Greek table of contents for Josehus but is listed in a later Latin version.

Not sure how much weight to give that. Is the passage still in that Greek version? If so, that weakens the argument, because then it is a matter of who decided what goes into the table of contents.. obviously not every passage is referenced in those tables.

ted

[Amaleq13]

In this particular translation it clearly says there was a first occasion of enmity and also there was another issue between Herod and Aretas that led to the war.

Josephus says that Aretas "made" the first occasion of his enmity. Your "literal" interpretation ignores the apparent suggestion of a choice on the part of Aretas rather than a chronological arrangement about which he could make no choice.

"Also" doesn't mean "simultaneous". Also means "in addition to"-- it is silent about the time because the time element was already dealt with by using the word "first". "First" could mean "primary" in importance, but why not just say "primary"?

Why say "made" if Josephus meant it happened first? Did you miss that I was asking a question about what this entire phrase meant rather than asserting a meaning?

Then you go and suggest that actually the land issue was the primary reason!

Why the exclamation point suggesting incredulity? Border disputes are quite common motivations for war and quite often of a long-standing nature.

IF the divorce issue was first as he says, then it follows that the land issue came later.

But Josephus doesn't say the divorce issue was first, he says Aretas "made" it first. A truly literal interpretation would include this rather significant part of the statement, I would think.

Political rebellions involve dissent. Dissent comes from criticism over SOMETHING. According to Josephus John was concerned about individual virtue.

Your choice of characterizing what is said in the passage about John's teachings as "individual virtue" seems more an effort to support your claims than to accurately describe what is written. Josephus describes what he meant by commanding his fellow Jews to "exercise virtue" when he goes on to identify "righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God". If John had specifically said something against Herod with regard to the divorce, this would have been a great place to mention it but the simple fact is that he does not. Also, mentioning adherence to the Law would be more supportive of your claim than what is actually present in the text.

It seems obvious to me that Herod would have plenty of reason to be worried that John's message would apply to his rule regardless of the divorce issue. Are the people going to be motivated to rebel because of the divorce or because Herod was working with the Romans in keeping the Jewish people subjugated? Given Herod's ongoing lack of "righteousness" in this regard, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the primary motivation was this new offense.

To NOT exploit a marriage to his brother's wife would be strange, wouldn't it?

To not mention that John made public statements about it and that those statements were a reason for Herod to kill him is what seems strange. Especially given that he just mentioned the divorce issue. Rebellion was a concern for Herod because he was working with the Romans not because of his lack of virtue in his personal life. If John was making specific critical statements against Herod, why wouldn't Josephus include them?

Why is this connection such a stretch to you?

It is a stretch because there is simply no basis for it in Josephus. You are reading Gospel details into the text to obtain your conclusion and I don't consider that a legitimate way of interpreting Josephus.

Mark's reason fits perfectly.

The author's reason fits nothing perfectly except the author's desire to avoid a rather politically problematic reference to rebellion against Roman domination while retaining a reference to the death of John. This is the same reason Pilate is depicted as ridiculously free from any guilt for the death of Jesus.

[TedM]

Josephus says that Aretas "made" the first occasion of his enmity. Your "literal" interpretation ignores the apparent suggestion of a choice on the part of Aretas rather than a chronological arrangement about which he could make no choice. Why say "made" if Josephus meant it happened first?

This just doesn't seem that awkward to me. Josephus could have said "this was the first time Aretas made Herod his enemy", or "this is the first time Herod became Aretas' enemy" both sound ok, although the second is a bit ambiguous because it isn't clear who is reacting. You ask "why say 'made' if Josephus meant it happened first. I can't think of a way to say it without 'made' that doesn't leave some ambiguity.. He could have said "this is the first time Herod became Aretas' enemy", or even "this is the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod". Aretas did 'make' Herod his enemy, so either it is left out and implied or kept in and stated clearly. For this reason I just don't see why including 'made' potentially changes the meaning.

I think you are comparing the following possibilities: Did he make the divorce the primary source (motivator) of enmity? Or did he make the divorce the source of enmity for the first time? As for 'first' vs 'primary' I guess I'd have to see the Greek to know more. I assume 'first' is more accurate than 'primary', and thus the passage is referring to chronology as opposed to an emphasis of importance.

Why the exclamation point suggesting incredulity? Border disputes are quite common motivations for war and quite often of a long-standing nature.

I used the exclamation point becuase you had just finished suggesting that using 'first' for the divorce may have implied that it was a primary motivating factor, and then you switched to saying that maybe really it was the land.


But Josephus doesn't say the divorce issue was first, he says Aretas "made" it first. A truly literal interpretation would include this rather significant part of the statement, I would think.

I agree. We do need to understand why this was included. To me it just gives the ownership of the enmity to Arestas, who obviously made a choice to let the divorce bother him.



If John had specifically said something against Herod with regard to the divorce, this would have been a great place to mention it but the simple fact is that he does not. Also, mentioning adherence to the Law would be more supportive of your claim than what is actually present in the text.

I agree. Those are good points. I don't know why he doesn't mention it. Maybe Josephus didn't really know, and said all he did know. It seems hard to believe that Josephus knew it and didn't mention it but as you state, the official reason for the arrest may have been Herod's 'working with the Romans in keeping the Jewish people subjugated".

It also seems just as hard to believe that John knew it and didn't mention it. John would have known it and would have disapproved. And if John did mention it, it is no stretch to see why Herod might have been motivated to arrest him for personal reasons, even if his official reason was different.


It is a stretch because there is simply no basis for it in Josephus. You are reading Gospel details into the text to obtain your conclusion and I don't consider that a legitimate way of interpreting Josephus.

I prefer to see it as applying common sense to John's character based on what we know from Josephus. Does it really make sense for John to have NOT said anything about it and that if he did Herod and/or Herodias wouldn't have cared about it? I agree with your analysis of Josephus with regard to the silence. I take back saying that Josephus implied that John had said something. However, it seems likely that in reality John probably did say something, so if we are looking just at the probability that the gospel reason for the arrest is true, I still conclude that it is likely that it is true given Josephus' own description of the events, though Mark may indeed have intentionally focused more on the religious than political aspects in his account.


ted

[Amaleq13]

This just doesn't seem that awkward to me. Josephus could have said "this was the first time Aretas made Herod his enemy", or "this is the first time Herod became Aretas' enemy" both sound ok, although the second is a bit ambiguous because it isn't clear who is reacting.

It all depends on what he meant, doesn't it? I don't know how you can conclude it isn't awkward when you don't really know what it means. It seems to me that, absent knowledge of the original language, it would be helpful to know whether Aretas and Herod had other clashes. If this was not the first of several, then a reconsideration on your part seems to be in order. I get the impression from Josephus that this was it between them. Aretas and Herod fought this once and Aretas kicked his ass. Reading the section from the beginning, Josephus starts by describing the quarrel about the divorce then adds that they "also" had one over a border. It certainly seems to me that Josephus is implying that the border dispute preceded the divorce quarrel.

You ask "why say 'made' if Josephus meant it happened first. I can't think of a way to say it without 'made' that doesn't leave some ambiguity.

It seems to me that including "made" is clearly what creates the problem for your interpretation. Note how you caused the problem to disappear by ignoring it and pretending that Josephus simply stated this to be the first occasion. :) But that is not what he wrote so, despite your claim to the contrary, we are left with a phrase that is rather awkward in English. You don't tend to find references to people making things first that are already first in a chronological sequence. Instead, you find people making things first that are not necessarily first in a sequence. Do you understand? Even though they had on ongoing border dispute, Aretas "made" this the first occasion of his enmity. Problem solved without ignoring any of the words.

I think you are comparing the following possibilities: Did he make the divorce the primary source (motivator) of enmity? Or did he make the divorce the source of enmity for the first time?

Of those two, the former seems to make more sense than the latter even though it denies you the temporal disconnect you wish to establish.

I used the exclamation point becuase you had just finished suggesting that using 'first' for the divorce may have implied that it was a primary motivating factor, and then you switched to saying that maybe really it was the land.

I just finished suggesting that Aretas made the divorce the primary motivation even though the border dispute was possibly the true motivation.

It also seems just as hard to believe that John knew it and didn't mention it.

Why is it hard to believe that John was not an idiot with a death wish? Josephus presents him as making general statements to his fellow Jews about how they should all change their ways. He goes on to explain that Herod perceived this as a potential threat. The John you suggest would be no potential threat because the idiot would have been publicly denouncing him before large crowds. That is a pretty explicit threat to one's position, don't you think?

Did every minister and priest in this country specifically discuss Clinton's blowjob from their pulpits or did they preach in more general terms about moral behavior and, possibly, make references to "even those in authority"? Do you think they would be more circumspect or more explicit if Clinton had the power to have them arrested and executed for their statements?

And if John did mention it, it is no stretch to see why Herod might have been motivated to arrest him for personal reasons, even if his official reason was different.

Personal reasons? Wouldn't making public denouncements of Herod constitute an explicitly treasonous act that would require no other excuse for a death sentence?

Does it really make sense for John to have NOT said anything about it...

Yes and it would be consistent with how Josephus describes him (ie giving commands to all Jews to change their behavior).

[TedM]

It seems to me that including "made" is clearly what creates the problem for your interpretation. Note how you caused the problem to disappear by ignoring it and pretending that Josephus simply stated this to be the first occasion. :) But that is not what he wrote so, despite your claim to the contrary, we are left with a phrase that is rather awkward in English. You don't tend to find references to people making things first that are already first in a chronological sequence. Instead, you find people making things first that are not necessarily first in a sequence. Do you understand?

I just don't see how 'made' necessarily makes a difference. These two sentences are basically equivalent to me: "Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity" with "Aretas first considered Herod to be his enemy because of this", so I don't see the translated words as awkward. I don't agree that people don't use first as an appropriate qualifier when naming things that happened sequentially. For example, if my parents were to describe the order of their children they would likely say "Wayne came first, then Frank, etc.." The problem for my case is that Josephus doesn't use a time qualifier for the border dispute, he only states that it also existed. Whether that means it existed during or before the time of the divorce, or only existed after the divorce--thus being the second occasion for enmity--is just not clear. IF it is the latter, then I'm saying some time elapsed between 'events of enmity' which led to the raising of armies, which places the divorce an unspecified amount of time prior to the war.

Even though they had on ongoing border dispute, Aretas "made" this the first occasion of his enmity. Problem solved without ignoring any of the words.

IF we are talking about 'first occasion' as chronology, this interpretation works if there were other, later occasions of enmity but I think neither of us know of any at this point. So, it is possible, and I'll now say even a reasonable interpretation. If this is correct, there is no need for time to elapse before raising armies and the traditional reading makes the most sense--placing the divorce just before the war.

However, you indicated that you prefer an intepretation of the 'first occasion' as meaning a primary source (motivator) of enmity. I just don't see that. For that to work, 'occasion of' would have to mean something like 'reason for', which doesn't seem correct. It seems more correct that 'occasion of' would mean 'time of' or 'event of'

Why is it hard to believe that John was not an idiot with a death wish? Josephus presents him as making general statements to his fellow Jews about how they should all change their ways. He goes on to explain that Herod perceived this as a potential threat. The John you suggest would be no potential threat because the idiot would have been publicly denouncing him before large crowds. That is a pretty explicit threat to one's position, don't you think?

Are you suggesting that John didn't know the danger he was in with the kinds of crowds he was attracting? I doubt it. He apparantly was more concerned with his message and being righteous and helping others to aspire to righteousness than for his own safety. That's why I say it also seems just as hard to believe that John knew about Herod's scandalous divorce and didn't mention it. I'll take back the comparison with Josephus though, since John did have more to lose than Josephus.

Actually the public denoucement of Herod by John isn't even required for the 'word on the street' to have been what we see in the gospels. Virtually everyone knew about this divorce and the scandalous marriage, and of course there was plenty of disapproval. Even if you are right that John valued his own life too much to mention it, it is plausible that the public thought Herod arrested John for offending him personally, based on what we know of John's ministry (call to piety and virtue) in Josephus' works alone.

IF the odds that John denounced Herod was 50% and nearly 100% that the public knew this AND the odds that the rumor was that John did denounce Herod even though he didn't was also 50%, that gives us a probability of 75% that the divorce was the believed reason for his arrest. Oh well, I"m speculating, but I am still doing it on the basis of what Josephus has told us about John and Herod and the cause of the war.

I"m tiring of this now, so I hope we are close to wrapping up :) Thanks for your insights.

ted

[Amaleq13]

I don't agree that people don't use first as an appropriate qualifier when naming things that happened sequentially. For example, if my parents were to describe the order of their children they would likely say "Wayne came first, then Frank, etc.."

That is a bad example because your parents really could say they "made" Wayne first. An analogous example would involve a sequence outside the control of the individual yet with the individual described as having "made" the first, first. I would be interested in any genuinely analogous example you might imagine but, as it stands, it certainly seems like an awkward sentence in English and only more so given your interpretation of a sequence of events.

However, you indicated that you prefer an intepretation of the 'first occasion' as meaning a primary source (motivator) of enmity. I just don't see that. For that to work, 'occasion of' would have to mean something like 'reason for', which doesn't seem correct.

You should have checked a dictionary on that one, Ted. :) Dictionary.com gives the following as meanings of "occasion":

5. Something that provides a reason or justification; a ground.

6. A need created by a particular circumstance: “He must buy what he has little occasion for” (Laurence Sterne).

Given no evidence of subsequent "occasions" of enmity, I would think this is the likely intended meaning.

I wish someone who knew Greek would chime in with an assist.

Are you suggesting that John didn't know the danger he was in with the kinds of crowds he was attracting?

No. I'm suggesting John was more interested in preaching his message than becoming a martyr and more interested in convincing his fellow Jews to change their ways than making political statements. A public denouncement of Herod suggests otherwise.

Oh well, I"m speculating, but I am still doing it on the basis of what Josephus has told us about John and Herod and the cause of the war.

I agree that you're speculating but it doesn't appear to me to be based on Josephus since the evidence of his text hardly supports a 50% chance of a denouncement of Herod. It doesn't really support the notion at all.

I"m tiring of this now, so I hope we are close to wrapping up

I've got nothing to add. I think it has been pretty well establish that there is no good reason to accept any of the speculative objections offered against interpreting Josephus as dating the death of John the Baptist not long before the war in 36ce between Aretas and Herod. :D

[TedM]

You should have checked a dictionary on that one, Ted. Dictionary.com gives the following as meanings of "occasion":

5. Something that provides a reason or justification; a ground.

6. A need created by a particular circumstance: ?He must buy what he has little occasion for? (Laurence Sterne).
That works for 'occasion for' but it doesn't sound right to me for 'occasion of'. I'm not sure if the Greek allows for a translation of 'occasion of'. Can you think of an example using 'occasion of' that you can apply the above definition to?

Let's take out 'first' and see what we have:

"Aretas made this an occasion of enmity between himself and Herod"
"Aretas made this an occasion for enmity between himself and Herod"

I don't have a problem with 'made' because Aretas does have control over his reactions to things. To me Josephus could be saying that Aretas made Herod his enemy and the other words 'first occasion of' are words giving further description about this action, so I don't have the same problem you have with the word 'made'.

The above 2 examples sounds slightly awkward, but not very much to me. IF 'for' is not acceptable and 'of' is, then would you agree that though it may sound a bit awkward the first sentence is most likely referring to an 'occurance' than a 'reason'?



. I'm suggesting John was more interested in preaching his message than becoming a martyr and more interested in convincing his fellow Jews to change their ways than making political statements. A public denouncement of Herod suggests otherwise.

Ok, you may be right. Let me ask this: Do you think--given what we know from Josephus, that the public understanding of WHY John was arrested could have over time been that it was over a public denouncement of Herod and if so what odds would you give it? To me the odds are decent since the public hated Herod and since the marriage was a big issue that caused the war they blame Herod's murder of John on AND since John's message was clearly against the kind of behavior Herod engaged in..

ted

[Amaleq13]

That works for 'occasion for' but it doesn't sound right to me for 'occasion of'.

I agree it is awkward and stilted sounding in English but I've found that to be often the case in translations of ancient Greek texts.

Can you think of an example using 'occasion of' that you can apply the above definition to?

I doubt it because in English we would tend to use "justification" with "of" rather than "reason". There are, of course, ample examples of "justification of" in English.

"Aretas made this an occasion of enmity between himself and Herod"
"Aretas made this an occasion for enmity between himself and Herod"

"Aretas made this the justification of enmity between himself and Herod."

I don't have a problem with 'made' because Aretas does have control over his reactions to things.

If it is a reaction rather than a sequence, then "first" should be understood more as "primary" than "initial" which is what I have been suggesting. You can't make something the first of a sequence except by creating a second but you can certainly choose to make something your first priority or primary reason for doing something.

IF 'for' is not acceptable and 'of' is, then would you agree that though it may sound a bit awkward the first sentence is most likely referring to an 'occurance' than a 'reason'?

No. I don't think we can reach a sound conclusion based on the apparent awkwardness of an English translation. It seems to me that the absence of any subsequent "occurance" of enmity would pretty much eliminate the idea that Josephus is talking about the first of a sequence. If Aretas and Herod never fought again, it wouldn't make any sense to refer to this battle as their "first", would it?

Do you think--given what we know from Josephus, that the public understanding of WHY John was arrested could have over time been that it was over a public denouncement of Herod and if so what odds would you give it?

I think it is entirely possible that the author of Mark followed your same line of speculation to create a new reason for John to be executed but there doesn't appear to be any good reason to generalize that to "the public". I think it would have been clear to the people that John, Josephus says, was considered a threat and eliminated because he was popular and preaching a message of change.

[CX]

Lots of "handing over"s in Mark.
Stephen

We notice in Mark's gospel that the author does not have a very expansive Greek vocabulary. The result is often text which is choppy, disjointed and otherwise convoluted. I interpret this much more as the author's lack of facility with Koine than anything else. In any case NC's analysis is clearly off the mark for the reasons already stated.

[TedM]

If it is a reaction rather than a sequence, then "first" should be understood more as "primary" than "initial" which is what I have been suggesting...It seems to me that the absence of any subsequent "occurance" of enmity would pretty much eliminate the idea that Josephus is talking about the first of a sequence.

Why can't it be a reaction AND a sequence? That's what I've been saying. The second in the sequence is the quarrel which he next describes. The quarrel would be an occasion of enmity too. Josephus doesn't say that the quarrel was a second occasion of enmity, but it sure seems to me that it could be read that way.

I think it is entirely possible that the author of Mark followed your same line of speculation to create a new reason for John to be executed but there doesn't appear to be any good reason to generalize that to "the public". I think it would have been clear to the people that John, Josephus says, was considered a threat and eliminated because he was popular and preaching a message of change.

Ok. I think the public could easily have made the same connections Mark did, so I guess we just see it differently.

take care,

ted

[Amaleq13]

The second in the sequence is the quarrel which he next describes. The quarrel would be an occasion of enmity too. Josephus doesn't say that the quarrel was a second occasion of enmity, but it sure seems to me that it could be read that way.

I don't see how that make any sense since it requires us to assume that they had this border dispute after Aretas had destroyed Herod's army.

I don't know if you are basing your argument on Muller or simply agree with him but you both clearly assume a delay between the divorce issue and the war which is entirely unsupported by what Josephus writes. There is absolutely no suggestion of any significant delay between the divorce issue and the start of the war. It is interesting to note that Muller dates the border dispute to 33-34ce which completely agrees with my suggestion that it preceded the divorce/remarriage issue.

Once we eliminate the unsubstantiated notion of a delay, my suggested reading has to be considered the more reasonable. Despite an ongoing dispute over the border, Aretas "made this the first occasion of his enmity" and started a war.

[TedM]

I don't see how that make any sense since it requires us to assume that they had this border dispute after Aretas had destroyed Herod's army.

I don't think it requires that at all because I'm not interpreting an 'occasion of enmity' as being an occasion of war, but rather as an occasion of dispute which furthers an enemy relationship.

I don't know if you are basing your argument on Muller

I haven't read Muller on this, but now I'm curious as to what he wrote so will check it out.

There is absolutely no suggestion of any significant delay between the divorce issue and the start of the war.

I agree that there is no suggestion of a significant delay between the divorce and the start of the war. But should we expect such a suggestion given Josephus' style of writing about events that preceded his birth? Does not he skip over years on other occasions? As I read it he is giving some of the background that led to the war. He cuts right in the middle of 2 passages to discuss JTB, then goes back to it. Assuming this passage isn't an interpolation, are we to assume that JTB was murdered just before the war too? The point is that if Josephus jumps around on his sequencing, then maybe the timing of his events can't easily be determined from his style of writing--so what we normally might infer about timing can't be given a lot of weight.

It is interesting to note that Muller dates the border dispute to 33-34ce which completely agrees with my suggestion that it preceded the divorce/remarriage issue

Yes it does, but it is consistent with theory of a delay unmentioned as such by Josephus, which the language and possibly the style of Josephus supports--one having the divorce being the first occasion of enmity, followed some years later by a second occasion of enmity being the border dispute--followed some years later by the raising of armies. The case for this would be strengthened by other examples in Josephus' writings in which he skips over years when describing the factors that led to an event.

Once we eliminate the unsubstantiated notion of a delay, my suggested reading has to be considered the more reasonable.

We have to first establish (through Greek/style analysis) that your interpretation of the first part of the sentence is more reasonable, before we accept your sequencing of the second part. IF that can be done and if it can be shown that there are no other examples in Josephus' writings of delays that are skipped over in a similar manner then I'd agree with your position.

ted

[TedM]

Mullers evidence to support a delay between the divorce of Herod and the war with Aretas, from his website:

1. Client kings (of the Romans) were forbidden to make war against each other (understandably!). Furthermore, Josephus wrote Herod Antipas "was in great favour with Tiberius" (Ant., XVIII, II, 3). In these circumstances, it was impossible for Aretas to go immediately on the offensive and he had to wait for an opportune time.
In 36C.E., Tiberius was semi-retired in Capri and the Roman strong man in the East was Vitellius, the president of Syria. To maintain peace with the threatening Parthiates, Tiberius sent Vitellius to negotiate a treaty with the king of Parthia. The meeting was successful. Herod Antipas, who was also there, informed Tiberius about it, before Vitellius could do so. Vitellius was furious at Herod and looking for revenge (Ant., XVIII, IV, 5). Soon after, Aretas attacked the army of Herod. Why then? Aretas must have thought that Herod lost his Roman support: Tiberius was peace loving and weak, Vitellius would not do a thing for Antipas.
At first, he was wrong: Tiberius did order Vitellius to retaliate against Aretas. But when the Roman army was marching towards Petra, Tiberius died and Vitellius happily "recalled his army" (Ant., XVIII, V, 3).

2.Also, Josephus related that Herod and Aretas "had some quarrel ... about their limits at the country of Gamalitis". This area was part of the tetrarchy of Philip. But after Philip's death (33-34C.E.), it is likely both Herod and Aretas lobbied for it (before its annexation to Syria). Consequently, this latter quarrel must have started then.

3.Furthermore, a long delay between Herod Antipas & Herodias marriage and the battle in 36C.E. is implied in GMark. The following account is abnormally long and detailed, with some items quasi-legendary and probably drawn from John's latter followers, but, in passing, provides a valuable piece of information:
Mk6:19-28 "So Herodias
[Herod's new wife, presented as ambitious and scheming by Josephus]
` nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him ... On his birthday Herod gave a banquet for his high officials and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. When the daughter of Herodias
[young Salome (whose father was Herodias' previous husband), later married to Philip, the king (tetrarch) of Cesarea Philippi, who died in 33-34C.E. Why later? Salome could not have performed a dance in front of a court of men as a married woman (to a king!) or as a royal widow. That would have been most improper, even scandalous]
` came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests. The king said to the girl,
[a married woman or widow could not be called a "girl"]
` "... At once the girl hurried in to the king ... He presented it to the girl, and she gave it to her mother."

4.And there is still more evidence for a significant lapse of years between Herod's union with Herodias and the battle in 36C.E.:
In Josephus' Antiquities, XVIII, VI, 2-3, the future Agrippa I visits Herod and Herodias "who was now the wife of Herod the tetrach". Then he is given a position in Tiberias which he occupies for some (unspecified) time. Then he goes and stays in Syria when his friend Flaccus is its president (32-35C.E.). The length of his sejourn here is not told. Then Agrippa sails to Rome when Flaccus is still ruling.

Comments?

ted

[Amaleq13]

Comments?

The first two obviously don't argue for a delay, they assume it and then point out that the other events had to occur later. If we don't assume a delay, the timing works out just fine with the divorce taking place not long before the start of the war.

The third assumes that Mark's story can be relied upon for history with regard to the dance of Salome but there doesn't appear to be any good reason for the assumption. The choice of identifying some bits as "quasi-legendary" and others as "a valuable piece of information" seems rather circularly guided by the preferred conclusion.

Given that we aren't provided any specific time reference for the fourth, I don't see how it requires or even suggests the assumed delay.

[TedM]

The first two obviously don't argue for a delay, they assume it and then point out that the other events had to occur later. If we don't assume a delay, the timing works out just fine with the divorce taking place not long before the start of the war.

I don't see that. The first basically says that wars wouldn't take place quickly, as is implied by your interpretation of the passage. The second gives a reason for the quarrel as likely being 2-3 years earlier, which which argues for a delay not on the assumption of a delay but on the assumption that the divorce preceded the border dispute.


The third assumes that Mark's story can be relied upon for history with regard to the dance of Salome but there doesn't appear to be any good reason for the assumption. The choice of identifying some bits as "quasi-legendary" and others as "a valuable piece of information" seems rather circularly guided by the preferred conclusion.

I agree that all we can rely on is that "Mark" was smart enough to place Herodia's daughter as unmarried--which is consistent with a pre 33AD date. Can we even date Mark's crucifixion of Jesus to anything prior to 36AD, Pilate's last year of reign? If not, and Mark was first, then this argues that Mark had a pre-33AD date in mind. Why would he have, as opposed to 36AD?
It could also argue for interpolation of Mark 6 by someone who later presumed the date had to have been pre 33AD.

Given that we aren't provided any specific time reference for the fourth, I don't see how it requires or even suggests the assumed delay.

Yeah, I'm not sure what he was getting at there, unless we can define 'now' in the passage. All it might do is not preclude the possibility--ie it doesn't work against the idea that the divorce was earlier.

ted

[Amaleq13]

The first basically says that wars wouldn't take place quickly, as is implied by your interpretation of the passage.

Observing that wars don't take place quickly doesn't justify or even suggest a decade delay. My interpretation would involve a delay of a year or two at the most.

The second gives a reason for the quarrel as likely being 2-3 years earlier, which which argues for a delay not on the assumption of a delay but on the assumption that the divorce preceded the border dispute.

I don't see any real difference between assuming the divorce preceded the border dispute by several years and assuming a significant delay. The second only establishes that the border dispute preceded the war by a few years and that is exactly what I've been saying. The subsequent divorce issue just gave Aretas the excuse he was apparently looking for ever since.

I agree that all we can rely on is that "Mark" was smart enough to place Herodia's daughter as unmarried--which is consistent with a pre 33AD date.

I would like to have some confirmation of Muller's claims regarding the inappropriateness of a widow doing the dance. He doesn't offer any support for it that I see.

If not, and Mark was first, then this argues that Mark had a pre-33AD date in mind. Why would he have, as opposed to 36AD?

It has been suggested in another thread that messianic expectations were high at this particular time specifically because of interpretations of Daniel.

[TedM]

Observing that wars don't take place quickly doesn't justify or even suggest a decade delay. My interpretation would involve a delay of a year or two at the most.

Yes, a decade is too long to require. Any delay goes against the typical inference that the war happened immediately, though. This undermines the idea that Josephus was giving us a detail blow by blow account. He likely wasn't. Since he wasn't, it leaves the door open for an elapse of time--even as long as a decade. If either interpretation of the phrase is correct--sequence or primary--then we can't conclude that the divorce/arrest happened around 36AD. All we can conclude is that it happened at some undetermined point prior to 36AD.

I would like to have some confirmation of Muller's claims regarding the inappropriateness of a widow doing the dance. He doesn't offer any support for it that I see.

There is no suggestion in Mark of it--as might be expected, but I agree that that would strengthen his case.

It has been suggested in another thread that messianic expectations were high at this particular time specifically because of interpretations of Daniel.

Do you mean at around 26-30AD? If so, then why would Mark deliberately place Jesus at 36AD, just after JTB's arrest, and then possibly make a reference in Mark 6 that places it all happening earlier? Are you suggesting that Mark thought he could get away with a difference of 6-10 years for the appearance of the Messiah? Wasn't that foolish if those that interpret Daniel calculated an earlier date? Even if it is just a 'story' the intent to present it according to scripture in a way that would have been believable to his audience seems a significant factor to me.

ted

[Amaleq13]

Yes, a decade is too long to require. Any delay goes against the typical inference that the war happened immediately, though.

I'm not aware of anybody who asserts the war happened within a number of days after Aretas heard about the divorce. That seems like a straw man. What is important is that Josephus' story does not imply or suggest a great deal of time took place between Aretas hearing of the divorce and the beginning of the war. A decade, as you acknowledge, is certainly not supported but isn't that exactly what is required in order to match up Josephus with Mark?

This undermines the idea that Josephus was giving us a detail blow by blow account.

This seems like another straw man because nothing I've said requires this assumption.

Since he wasn't, it leaves the door open for an elapse of time--even as long as a decade.

No, it does not. That would be a rather extraordinary delay and I would think it might have been mentioned. Regardless, I thought you already acknowledged that a decade is too long to assume?

If either interpretation of the phrase is correct--sequence or primary--then we can't conclude that the divorce/arrest happened around 36AD. All we can conclude is that it happened at some undetermined point prior to 36AD.

No, we can conclude that it probably happened not very long before the start of the war because Josephus identifies it as Aretas' motivation and does not mention any unusual delay in the preparation for and engagement in war.

Do you mean at around 26-30AD?

I don't know that we can be that specific but it certainly seems that the first half of the 1st century was considered "the time".

If so, then why would Mark deliberately place Jesus at 36AD, just after JTB's arrest, and then possibly make a reference in Mark 6 that places it all happening earlier?

First, I don't see any reason to assume the author had such a specific timeline in mind. Second, I don't see any reason to assume the author was concerned about historical accuracy in telling his story. If Muller is correct that an earlier time is implied for the dance, I see no reason to assume the author did this deliberately. It is possible but we really don't know why the author felt compelled to blame Salome. I think Vorkosigan has suggested an origin in Scripture for this "detail" but I can't recall where.

Are you suggesting that Mark thought he could get away with a difference of 6-10 years for the appearance of the Messiah?

Sure. I don't know of any evidence that a specific year was "the target" at the time. Luke and Matthew have managed to "get away" with birth years that are a decade apart with no problem. :) Faith provides an astounding ability to ignore such problems, I think.

[TedM]

I'm not aware of anybody who asserts the war happened within a number of days after Aretas heard about the divorce. That seems like a straw man. What is important is that Josephus' story does not imply or suggest a great deal of time took place between Aretas hearing of the divorce and the beginning of the war. A decade, as you acknowledge, is certainly not supported but isn't that exactly what is required in order to match up Josephus with Mark?

A decade is required to match it up. At first reading the passage sounds like it is less than 10 years. The original posts here I think were talking about a period that was nearly immediate. You are allowing for a few years. I've given an interpretation that allows for an unspecified amount of time and I do not think it unlikely for Josephus to NOT tell us the years if it was as many as 10 given his style of writing and jumping around, and referring to events that preceded his birth. I'm suggesting the 10 years as a possibility not to be ruled out from the passage the way it is now.


Second, I don't see any reason to assume the author was concerned about historical accuracy in telling his story. If Muller is correct that an earlier time is implied for the dance, I see no reason to assume the author did this deliberately. It is possible but we really don't know why the author felt compelled to blame Salome. I think Vorkosigan has suggested an origin in Scripture for this "detail" but I can't recall where.

He suggested Ester, and sees strong similarities. I see a few, but am unconvinced. Actually, Mark just has Salome passing along Herodias' request, but the dance can be tied to Ester in some way.

ted

[TedM]

Gary Goldberg has replied to an email I sent him regarding the passage in question, and my interpretation. He approved posting it here:



Thanks for your email. You quote the English translation of Ant. 18.113,

"So Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with him about their limits at the country of Gamalitis."

And you suggest the words "first occasion" can imply a precedence in time, followed only after some interval by further disputes. As it is dangerous to argue from translations, we have to see if the Greek text supports this. The original is:

ho de archên echthras tautên poiêsamenos peri te horôn en gêi têi Gamalikêi,

Literally translating this, one gets something like;

"But he made this the start of hostilities regarding the boundaries in the land of Gamala..."

This is more compressed than the usual translation. The sentence does not end there, but immediately continues with the disposition of forces and commanders on the two sides.

From the point of view of historical possibility, one can postulate a gap in time between the arrival of Aretas' daughter and his subsequent determination to use this as part of an excuse to go to war. But Josephus, as a writer, has definitely made use of narrative techniques to give the impression of a great pace of events, moving swiftly from Herod's return from Rome, his wife's calculated and dramatic move to Machaerus, her subsequent flight to her father, her revelation of Herod's plans, and then an immediate description of battle. So either Josephus is simply relating events as they indeed happened, or else he has some motivation for making it appear these occurred more closely in time than was the case.

The latter possibility is actually rather interesting. It is quite plausible that ex-followers of John would attribute any defeat of Herod to his wickedness in regard to their former leader, even if the divine punishment were delayed a few years. These followers would naturally gloss over the intervening time as unimportant (only a passing moment when viewed from the vantage point of heaven). If Josephus in fact also compressed this time, than his source was one of these followers of John, or at least a sympathizer; which makes him a sympathizer too. And this potential sympathy is supported by his unusual discussion of John the Baptist (assuming it is authentic), which resonates with his fond memories from the "Life" of his time in the wilderness with the John-like figure Banu.

As you might tell, I rather like this last explanation.

Also, Muller's point is good, but it requires accepting the story from Mark, which many historians would be reluctant to do.

I am in the process of updating my web site. Do you mind if I post your letter on my site? Maybe other people will share their opinions about this.

- Gary Goldberg

ted

[Amaleq13]

Literally translating this, one gets something like;

"But he made this the start of hostilities regarding the boundaries in the land of Gamala..."

So how does a translator decide to ignore this fairly clear meaning in favor of the more ambiguous wording we have in English?

With regard to Goldberg's notion of Josephus as a Baptist-sympathizer, I think Crossan points out that Josephus seems to "protest too much" when he asserts that John's baptisms were not, contrary to the Gospel depiction, for the remission of sins.

PS Thanks for making the effort to find somebody to help with the Greek!

[TedM]

So how does a translator decide to ignore this fairly clear meaning in favor of the more ambiguous wording we have in English?

Good question.

With regard to Goldberg's notion of Josephus as a Baptist-sympathizer, I think Crossan points out that Josephus seems to "protest too much" when he asserts that John's baptisms were not, contrary to the Gospel depiction, for the remission of sins.

Josephus or his source may well have been aware of a popular misconception about it, or it could be an interpolation--in which case we have no foundation at all for saying Mark put JBap in the wrong time frame..

PS Thanks for making the effort to find somebody to help with the Greek!

You're welcome.

ted