maryhelena

John the Baptist: “destined to be king over Israel’?

That’s the storyline in the Infancy Gospel of James.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s-roberts.html

(my bolding)

The son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, John, “destined to be king over Israel’? And Mary’s son also! - and only around six months between the two pregnancies?

One could view the gospel of James as being written after the gospel storyline - as is usually the argument with the wonder-worker storyline in Slavonic Josephus. Or, one could, if one views the gospel storyline as a developing storyline (that what we now have is the story in its final, canonised, version) view these stories as being pre-gospel stories. In other words; work forward from these basic stories instead of trying to work backwards from the gospels, ie someone takes bits and pieces out of the canonical gospels, adds some of their own stuff, and that’s what one now sees in Slavonic Josephus and the Infancy Gospel of James. But is that not only the easy way out of the problem, it’s also relies on the assumption of a historical gospel JC.

The gospel storyline, that we now have, has it’s central figure, JC, as the only king to be - John the Baptist has no story re being destined to be king over Israel. That someone would take their cue from the canonical storyline and so distort that story, as to have John, son of Elizabeth and Zacharias, to also be in the same league as it’s JC figure regarding a claim to kingship, is illogical. Two rival claims to kingship. The gospels go with their JC figure. Was there another group that decided for the JtB claim? Or, was there something else going on here? The writer of the gospel of James seems to think both claims are warranted - albeit his timing raises questions.

In the gospel of James the two claims to kingship, that of Mary’s Jesus, and Elizabeth’s son, John, are linked together by the pregnancy of the two woman. However, if this pregnancy linkage is just that, a literary device to connect two claims to kingship that actually, historically, relate to two different time periods, then the two king idea in the gospel of James makes more sense. (salvation history is not bound by the harsh facts of history - it’s free to take liberties...)

Putting aside the pregnancy linkage and viewing the two birth stories as non-contemporary, the two king story in the gospel of James can make more sense:

The earlier story is obviously that of John. The gospel of James has the father of John as the high priest - and that his son is destined to be king of Israel. The only time that was possible was in a Hasmonean context. Antigonus being the last such High Priest and King. In the story Zacharias is murdered. In history, the father of Antigonus , Aristobulus II, High Priest and King, is killed, poisoned by “those of Pompey's party" - and later, Herod has Antigonus crucified and beheaded.

The gospel of James places it’s ‘birth’ story of John during the time of Herod: Historically, Antigonus became High Priest and King in 40 bc - the same year that Herod the Great was appointed King of Judea, while he was in Rome.

The Jesus birth narrative in the gospel of James, dealing as it does with a king story outside the priestly context, of John’s birth, suggests a ‘birth’ during a non-Hasmonean time slot. A time after the removal of the last Hasmonean king/priest, Antigonus. (as the gospel storyline, and the gospel of James, are not historical - talk of *birth* is not a literal birth but simply new beginnings. )

The writer of the gospel of James says he was in Jerusalem at the death of Herod. If that is a reference to Herod the Great, the dating would be 4 bc. Not necessarily, of course, but always a possibility,that that is when this work was written, but useful as a historical time marker that the writer found to have relevance - and places himself as having been there at that time. Seemingly, both the start of the rule by Herod the Great and the end of that rule in 4 bc are seen to be relevant. In 40 bc, both Herod and Antigonus became king of the Jews. Herod in Rome and Antigonus as High Priest and King, in Jerusalem. The new ‘birth, or new beginning in 4 bc, would indicate a similar historical situation. A new king in Jerusalem, Archelaus, and a new Tetrarch, Philip, in Trachonitis. Archelaus only ruled a few years before Rome removed him. Philip goes on to rule a very long time - in fact the whole of the gospel JC time frame. Who is Philip the Tetrarch?

The gospel of James story re John and his “destined to be king over Israel’ is a storyline that finds it’s historical reflection in the historical events of the life of Antigonus. Only when another king comes along, a king who would be viewed as having a Hasmonean connection, could the developing gospel storyline change track - drop the kingship reference to John, the son of Elizabeth and Zacharias, and run with the updated interpretation based upon new historical realities from 4 bc.

Which method produces forward movement in seeking early Christian history? Backwards from the gospels - some crazy people cherry picked the gospel storyline, added illogical stuff, and produced their own distorted gospel stories. Or, these non- canonical stories are evidence for a developing gospel storyline - a gospel storyline that is interpreting historical events as salvation history.

(Very interesting is the idea, within the gospel of James, that Joseph is a widower and would have older children from an earlier wife. The gospels drop this idea although retaining it would have avoided some confusion over the question of siblings for JC. - though a hedge against making Mary a perpetual virgin probably a more pressing issue...).

PhilosopherJay

Hi Maryhelena,

Excellent catch that the born-to-be-king story line of Jesus is lifted from the John-born-to-be-king story line. The birth narrative of Jesus in the Matthew and Luke gospels only makes sense as a later rewriting of the John birth narrative to include Jesus.

I think we have to see the earliest Jesus group as being a splinter from a John faction.

We can note all the elements taken from the John story and reworked in the Jesus tale:

1. Prosecution by Herod at birth
2. Prediction of child savior for Israel
3. Baptism
4. Coming or Going to the Wilderness
5. Speeches against the rich and mighty

Even characteristics defining Jesus are simply put as binary opposites to John:

John sober, Jesus drinks.
John fasts, Jesus does not.
John strict morals, Jesus loose morals, hangs out with tax collectors and prostitutes.
John involved with politics, Jesus outside of Politics.

For a modern political comparison, one might say that the followers of John were like the Republican Party and the followers of Jesus like the Teabagger Party.

We may imagine that creating the Jesus character was a way for the members of the John cult to rebrand themselves as something new after the John cult had developed an image problem and become unpopular.

Note from Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119

Assuming that this passage is not a later Christian insertion, the John followers must have been happy that Herod lost the battle against Aretas, the King of Petra in 36/37, declaring it God's will for Herod's treatment of John. This would have made them extremely unpopular with the Judean ruling class. Certainly the followers of Herod would have considered them traitors to the nation.

So you have a once popular group, now hated by the Jewish ruling class with a dead leader who had made the failed prediction that the Kingdom of God is at hand. What do you do? Better rewrite your narrative in a new way.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Toto

Robert Price has an essay "Was Jesus John the Baptist Risen from the Dead?" which no longer seems to be online. It has been reprinted in Jesus is Dead (or via: amazon.co.uk).

stephan huller

It is worth pointing out that the standard way of reading the text is that Herod MISTOOK John to be the messiah just as the Marcionites said the demons MISTOOK Jesus to be the Son, that the blind bar Timaeus MISTOOK Jesus to be the Son of David (and then when he got his sight properly called him Lord) and Peter and Pilate MISTOOK Jesus as the messiah

There was a whole lot of mistaking going on

maryhelena

Hi, Philosopher Jay

I don’t take either JC or JtB to be historical figures. What I found interesting with the quote from the gospel of James, re it’s John figure to be “destined to be king over Israel”, and it’s Jesus figure a king also, is that this two king scenario can go some way in understanding, from a historical perspective, the canonical gospel figures of JC and JtB.

With the canonical gospels dropping the king story for it’s JtB and only having one king story, ie JC, it looks, to me anyway, that the gospel JC storyline has incorporated the John story, from the gospel of James, into it’s composite Jesus figure.

Once the canonical gospels have combined the two king stories from the gospel of James - the prior history, the earlier history of the Hasmonean king that is reflected in it’s John story - becomes available for re-use in the canonical gospels JC composite figure. And JtB can stick around in a new ‘resurrected’ format (no longer born to be king) to haunt the minds of those guilty Herodians.

King Herod says “John the man I beheaded, has been raised from the dead”. John comes back from the grave to haunt King Herod? Or is this a case of the historical tape being re-run and not a recent beheading? The Antipas and Herodias and JtB storyline has all the elements of the historical events of 37 bc. Herod the Great gets rid of his first wife, Doris, to take the Hasmonean, Mariamne, as his new wife. Antipas gets rid of Phasaelis, daughter of Aretes, to take the grand-daughter of Mariamne, Herodias, as wife. Herod the Great defeats the army of Antigonus, and has him killed. Antipas is defeated in his war with Aretes. A reversal of fortune for the Herodian, defeat in 36 ce - because Herod has had John killed. (Conveniently, this war with Aretes is placed, by Josephus, around the time of the death of Tiberius - hence no Roman army sent to give Aretes a whipping for attacking and defeating a Roman appointed ruler...).

I’m looking at history - and finding a reflection of that history, a symbolic representation of that history, within the salvation history of the canonical gospels. What was actually going on, on the ground, so to speak, is an open question. Probably, a strong political undercurrent re any Hasmonean aspirations. However, somewhere along the line, a more ‘spiritual’ take on things developed, ie early Christian history. So, although what transpired on the ground, re early Christian history, is an open question - it seems evident that the gospel storyline is using historical figures for it’s interpretative purposes - hence for it’s salvation history story. History mattered - and is that not why we have the gospel storyline? Paul and his vision might well enlighten theological/spiritual philosophizing – but it can’t hold a candle to the grand sweep of history.

Doug Shaver

According to your excerpt, that is what Herod thought. There is no suggestion that he had any good reason to think so or that anybody else did think so.

The author's point, quite obviously, is not that John was destined to be king, but that Herod was a fool.

maryhelena

Oh, come now...

Who knows, or cares, what Herod thought! It's a story for heavens sake...
The point is that someone, the writer, wrote a storyline regarding the son of Elizabeth and Zacharias, John - that their son was "destined to be king of Israel". The story also includes the son of Mary, Jesus, also destined to be king:

It's storyline development that is of interest - and how that storyline development has used historical events as a backdrop to it's salvation interests.

PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

But isn't Salome a character in the Baptist story? What is she doing in the Jesus story?

May we not conjecture a simple erasure of the name of John and substitution the nomina sacra for his name.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

maryhelena

In the John story, in the gospel of James, Salome is not connected to John. The canonical gospels do not name the dancing daughter of Herodias.

In the gospel of James, Salome is akin to doubting Thomas, ie she does not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus - and decides to physically examine Mary (after Mary giving birth.......). However, she finds that Mary is indeed still a virgin...

Taking the gospel of James story as it stands - two king scenarios that have yet to be combined, the two stories stand separately. No additional information is provided re Salome that would connect her to the John birth story. Of course, once the two king stories have been combined, as in the canonical gospels - elements from the Jesus birth story can be used in a context about JtB - and likewise too of course, elements from the John story can be utilized in the Jesus story. A nice mix-up to confuse the unwary....

Sure, once in the canonical gospels, John, as one “destined to be king’, has been erased. That’s all JC now. But John, in his new identity as JtB, is still around to play a forerunner role in the developing JC storyboard.

Since I don’t take Jesus or John to be historical figures - Salome, in the gospel of James, would, likewise, join them.

(Salome, daughter of Herodias, was born around 14 ce. (Wikipedia). Hence this Salome was not around to be used, symbolically, in any Jesus birth story prior to 4 bc. Although backdating Salome could be done - but, it seems to me, that when historical figures are going to be used to colour gospel figures, name changing is more in vogue than naming names. The canonical gospels don’t name the daughter of Herodias who dances for Antipas. Josephus names her as Salome - and says she is married to Philip. Kokkinos has challenged Josephus on this point re the marriage to Philip...)

Doug Shaver

Yes, I'm aware of that.

The story does not say that, as I understand the story. The story, as I understand it, says that Herod believed John was "destined to be king of Israel". It also says, as I understand it, that Herod was mistaken in that belief.