Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rick Sumner · 09-22-2004, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Speaking of outside vectors, what is known about the use of beheadings as a form of punishment? We know, for example, what sorts of crimes/criminals were typically crucified but can we say the same for a beheading by Herod?

As I understand it, beheading was fairly standard for crimes that weren't punished by crucifixion, particularly religious crimes.

Quote:

If we didn't have the Gospel stories, would we be able to assume/guess the means of execution from Josephus?

Presuming what I said above (though I'm not 100% certain of it), beheading would be the natural conclusion.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Steven Carr · 09-22-2004, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Are you suggesting that there was no real execution of John the Baptist? If not, how do you propose to tell the real details from the redaction? For example, I'd suggest it's prima facie likely that John was beheaded.

Out of curiosity, when was John the Baptist executed? Robin Lane Fox propounded a theory that he was executed in 33 AD. Has that theory ever been refuted?

Toto · 09-22-2004, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Speaking of outside vectors, what is known about the use of beheadings as a form of punishment? We know, for example, what sorts of crimes/criminals were typically crucified but can we say the same for a beheading by Herod?

If we didn't have the Gospel stories, would we be able to assume/guess the means of execution from Josephus?

John the Baptist in Josephus

Quote:

Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119

Now 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.

There is no indication of how he was put to death.

Dennis MacDonald traces the elements of Mark's story to the murder of Agamemnon by Clytemnestra, which evolved after Homer's time into a lurid tale of a beheading. There is an illustrated exposition of that here

Toto · 09-22-2004, 01:30 PM

Dating John the Baptist

Quote:

. . . it does appear that Josephus is giving John's death as occurring in 36 CE, 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 CE:

He states that the quarrel with Aretas sprang up "about the time" (Ant. 18.5.1. 109) that Herod's brother Philip died in 34 CE (Ant. 18.4.6 106).

During this time Herod's brother Agrippa had gone to Rome "a year before the death of Tiberius" (Ant18.5.3 126), which places Agrippas's departure in 36 CE.

Soon after the battle, the Syrian commander Vitellius was ordered by Tiberius to attack Aretas, whereupon Vitellius marched through Judea with his army, pausing in Jerusalem to placate the Jews and to sacrifice at a festival (probably Passover). On the fourth day of his stay in Jerusalem he learned of the death of Tiberius, which had occurred on March 16 37 CE (and it could have taken up to a month for Jerusalem to get the news). This puts the battle in the winter of 36/37 CE.

Vitellius' action against Aretas must have occurred between his action against the Parthians, under Tiberius' orders, and the death of Tiberius. The Parthian war occurred in 35 and 36 CE, as indicated both by Josephus and by the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius. (Herod the Tetrarch assisted Vitellius in negotiations between Tiberius and the Parthian king.)

The only question, then, is whether Josephus is misleading when he implies that the battle with Aretas came immediately after Herod separated from Aretas' daughter.

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.

Kosh · 09-22-2004, 06:17 PM

Probably a question born out of ignorance, since I'm not familiar with the dating of either Homer or Esther, but is it possible that Esther was also based on Homer?

Vorkosigan · 09-22-2004, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

John the Baptist in Josephus

There is no indication of how he was put to death.

So we're even more fact-less than I thought!

Quote:

Dennis MacDonald traces the elements of Mark's story to the murder of Agamemnon by Clytemnestra, which evolved after Homer's time into a lurid tale of a beheading. There is an illustrated exposition of that here

I just got this book. Can't wait to re-read.

Vorkosigan

09-23-2004, 04:41 AM

I can´t be the only person struck by how incredibly weak this parrallelomania is. Vork has nothing except two murdered passages laid side by side and one common phrase (which is obviously a trope) between them. OK, it is not as weak as his presentation of the Temple Ruckus where he used so many sources to rebuild the story, he actually increased the chance of it being historical, but it is still pretty bad.

Vork´s method would work if only he could dig up something convincing. But with the entire OT and midrash to play with he has still failed to produce anything remotely like a close parrallel. The story of John´s death probably is largely fiction but Vork has done nothing to increase the certainty of that.

McD does exactly the same thing in his book about Homer and Mark and produces exactly the same amount of convincing material - that is nada. Still, this is the sort of game scholars like to play and after expressing my disapproval, I´ll just let you all get on with until something meaningful turns up.

Yours

Bede

Celsus · 09-23-2004, 05:51 AM

Well at least one unescapable conclusion we find, if Vork or McDonald is correct, is that Mark was spectacularly well read, a literary genius, and brilliantly persuasive. With him on their side, how could the Christians lose?

Joel

Intelligitimate · 09-23-2004, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

I can´t be the only person struck by how incredibly weak this parrallelomania is.

And I can't be the only person struck by how uncovincing your cries of the parallels being forced are. Perhaps you can explain to us why this parallel is forced and, say, the Elijah-John parallel isn't forced.

Rick Sumner · 09-23-2004, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intelligitimate

And I can't be the only person struck by how uncovincing your cries of the parallels being forced are. Perhaps you can explain to us why this parallel is forced and, say, the Elijah-John parallel isn't forced.

The Elijah-John parallel is explicitly stated, and thus can't be eisegetical.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-22-2004, 06:17 PM	#15
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	Probably a question born out of ignorance, since I'm not familiar with the dating of either Homer or Esther, but is it possible that Esther was also based on Homer?

09-23-2004, 04:41 AM	#17
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	I can´t be the only person struck by how incredibly weak this parrallelomania is. Vork has nothing except two murdered passages laid side by side and one common phrase (which is obviously a trope) between them. OK, it is not as weak as his presentation of the Temple Ruckus where he used so many sources to rebuild the story, he actually increased the chance of it being historical, but it is still pretty bad. Vork´s method would work if only he could dig up something convincing. But with the entire OT and midrash to play with he has still failed to produce anything remotely like a close parrallel. The story of John´s death probably is largely fiction but Vork has done nothing to increase the certainty of that. McD does exactly the same thing in his book about Homer and Mark and produces exactly the same amount of convincing material - that is nada. Still, this is the sort of game scholars like to play and after expressing my disapproval, I´ll just let you all get on with until something meaningful turns up. Yours Bede

09-23-2004, 05:51 AM	#18
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	Well at least one unescapable conclusion we find, if Vork or McDonald is correct, is that Mark was spectacularly well read, a literary genius, and brilliantly persuasive. With him on their side, how could the Christians lose? Joel

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.