THE DEATH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST The date of John the Baptist's execution has implications for dating the crucifixion of Jesus. The gospel versions The version in Josephus The traditional harmonization Historical reconstruction Comments Chronological questions Conclusion THE GOSPEL VERSIONS The story is found in the Gospel of Mark 6:14-29. Here a 'King Herod' had heard about the miracles of Jesus and assumed that Jesus was a manifestation of John the Baptist whom he had executed earlier. The story of John's execution is told in parenthesis as a flashback. Herod had arrested John because of John's comment on Herod's marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip's wife: "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." (NRSV) Herodias had a grudge against John, but Herod was afraid to take the matter further because he was afraid of John who he knew to be a righteous and holy man. Herodias' daughter danced at Herod's birthday pary. She pleased Herod so much he asked her what gift she would like. The dancer conferred with her mother Herodias who told her to ask for the head of John the Baptist. Herod could not go back on his word and had John beheaded. The head was brought in on a platter and given to the daughter who in turn gave it to Herodias. In the Gospel of Matthew (14:1-12) the outline is similar but 'King Herod' has been replaced with 'Herod the tetrarch'. This clearly refers to Antipas, a son of Herod the Great, who was tetrarch of the Galilee and Perea. The story appears in an abbreviated form in Luke 3:19-20. There is no mention of the birthday party or of John's execution. "So, with many other exhortations, he [John] proclaimed the good news to the people. But Herod the ruler (Greek tetrarch), who had been rebuked by him because of Herodias, his brother's wife, and because of all the evil things that Herod had done, added to them all by shutting up John in prison." (NRSV) THE VERSION IN JOSEPHUS The story is also found in book XVIII of Josephus Antiquities of the Jews. Here Josphus is recounting the history of the descendants of King Herod. Josephus relates the history of Philip, the brother of Herod the Tetrarch, and states that Philip died childless in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius. Philip is identified as the ruler of Trachonitis, Gaulanitis, and the tribe of the Bataneans. In order to avoid confusion, from now on Josephus' references to "Herod the Tetrarch" will be replaced by Antipas, the name by which the tetrarch is normally known today. So too the references to "Herod" where it is certain the same individual is meant. Antipas had married the daughter of Aretas, the King of Petra [i.e., the neighbouring kingdom of Nabatea]. On a journey to Rome Antipas had stayed with a half-brother 'Herod', the son of King Herod and his wife, the daughter of Simon the high priest. (Some mss give the half-brother's name as Philip, but this could be from a later redaction.) While there, Antipas had fallen in love with his half-brother's wife, Herodias. Herodias agreed to marry Antipas after his return from Rome on condition he divorced the daughter of Aretas. Before Antipas' return from Rome, the daughter of Aretas realized what was happening and fled back to her father. As a result Aretas invaded Antipas' territory. Antipas' army was defeated which some Jews saw as divine vengeance for Antipas' execution of John the Baptist. Antipas is stated to have executed John because he feared John's teachings could lead to unrest. The narrative then covers the rest of the war, and then begins to recount the histories of other descendants of King Herod. Here he mentions Herodias again. Herodias was married to 'Herod', the son of King Herod and his wife Mariamme, by whom she had a daughter, Salome. Herodias then married Antipas, the half-brother of her husband 'Herod'. This 'Herod' was still alive at the time of the marriage. Herodias' daughter Salome married Philip, the tetrarch of Trachonitis, another son of King Herod. THE TRADITIONAL HARMONIZATION There have been many attempts to reconcile the discrepancies within and between the various accounts. For an overview see Herod Antipas H. W. Hoehner, 1972, Cambridge University Press (paperback edition 1980, Zondervan). From the traditional point of view any intertextual problems are minor. In the main the Josephus' version can be harmonized with the gospel versions, and it is from this harmonization that modern versions of the stories are derived (plays, books, the opera, etc.). The main points are: Herodias had abandoned or divorced her husband (an otherwise unknown 'Herod Philip') in order to marry Antipas. This made her an adulteress in the eyes of John the Baptist. The girl who danced at Antipas' birthday part was Salome, Herodias' daughter from her earlier marriage. Because Herodias had left her previous husband before his death, her marriage to Antipas could not be tied to a particular date, and therefore neither could the excecution of John the Baptist. The gospel sequence that John the Baptist's execution occurred before the crucifixion of Jesus was therefore unchallenged, and John's death had no ramifications for dating this event. HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION Unfortunately this analysis no longer stands. We can now date Herodias' marriage to Antipas with some precision. (See The Herodian Dynasty, Nikos Kokkinos, 1988, Journal for the Study of the Pseudographia Supplement Series 30, Sheffield Academic Press.) Herodias was born in about 15 BCE. She was the grandaughter of King Herod and his 2nd wife, Mariamme I, who was a grandaughter of Hyrcanus III, one of the kings of Judaea. In about 8 BCE she was betrothed to Herod III and married him when she came of age at about the turn of the century. Herod III was the son of King Herod and his 5th wife, Mariamme II. Mariamme was the daughter of Simon, a son of Boethus of Alexandria. When King Herod had conquered Judaea he had eliminated any potential opponents to his rule, including the then high priests of Jerusalem. The vacancies were filled by the Alexandrian Boethus family, Simon being appointed High Priest of Jerusalem. Herod's marriage to Simon's daughter Mariamme was in effect a means of bestowing patronage to (and therefore control over) the high priesthood. Herod III had been designated as heir to the kingdom in a will of King Herod, but he was later cut out when a new will was made. On the death of King Herod the Romans divided up his kingdom between three of his sons. Archelaus was appointed ethnarch of Judaea, Antipas was appointed tetrarch of the Galilee and Perea, and Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis. Archelaus' rule was not a success and he was banished in CE 6, the Romans taking direct control of Judaea. Herod III would have lost even more prestige at this time. He was related via his mother to the Boethian high priestly family, and during the period of direct Roman rule their position weakened, most of the high priests of Jerusalem being drawn from the rival family of Ananus. Herodias divorced Herod III and married Philip. The date is unknown, but one can presume this was due to the increased power and prestige of Philip and the loss of status of Herod III. Alternatively the divorce and the subsequent marriage may have been arranged by King Herod when he cut Herod II from his will. (See article Herodias I.) Philip died in late CE 33. He may have been childless, or possibly had no male heirs. In any event there were contenders to replace him, of whom one was Antipas. He and the widowed Herodias agreed to marry which in effect would help Antipas in his claim for Philip's territory and maintain Herodias' position as the wife of a tetrarch. This is clearly a political marriage and the idea that Antipas had fallen in love with Herodias a romantic fabrication - in CE 33 Herodias was 48 or 49 years old and Antipas was approaching 60. According to Josephus, Herodias imposed the condition that Antipas divorced his current wife, the daughter of Aretas IV. No doubt this was an issue of prestige. Herodias was descended from a branch of the Herodian clan with links to the ancient family of Hyrcanus, and it is unlikely she would have accepted a position inferior to that of Aretas' daughter. However before the marriage could take place Antipas had to get permission from the Emperor Augustus. This involved a personal journey to Rome which could only have been started in the following spring and would have taken some months. The marriage would have taken place in the autumn of CE 34 at the earliest. COMMENTS The historical reconstruction above makes more sense than the traditional view. It avoids the difficulty of the otherwide unknown 'Herod-Philip' who is usually specified as Herodias' husband prior to Antipas. And it also provides a convincing reason why Antipas would want to marry Herodias. A marriage to the widow of Philip the tetrarch would advance Antipas' claim for Philip's territory, even to the extent of being worth the risk of antagonizing Aretas by the marriage. (See article Herod the tetrarch.) Legally, both in the Pharasaic and Sadducean traditions, Herodias and Antipas were doing nothing wrong. But that would not have been the view of those who had a fundamentalist concept of marriage such as John the Baptist. It is possible that Herodias was already considered an adulteress as she had divorced her first husband, Herod III, and by marrying Antipas and residing in the Galilee she brought herself within range of her accusers such as John the Baptist who operated in Antipas' territory. The fact that all three of her husbands were also her uncles probably didn't help. John the Baptist's disparaging comments on the marriage of Antipas and Herodias could not have taken place earlier than the public announcement of the forthcoming marriage. So if Herodias' prior husband was Philip the tetrarch, and he died in CE 33, we can place John's comments as being no earlier than late CE 34 when Herod returned from Rome. However John's execution is related to Antipas' birthday party which must have happened some time later, possibly CE 35. As the gospels place John's execution as happening prior to the crucifixion of Jesus, this puts a limitation on dating the crucifixion earlier than that date. So can the gospel version be relied on? If we accept the primacy of Mark in the Synoptic gospels, then the story first occurs in Mark. Matthew follows Mark, but Luke condenses it to two lines and omits the execution, and John ignores it completely. One inference might be Luke and John considered it dubious. Luke in particular, who was creating a presentation copy for Theophilus, might be careful about making statements concerning Herodian princes that could not be substantiated. Clearly there are fictional elements in the story. That a Herodian princess would be so declassé as to dance in public is a problem that has been raised by several commentators. And of course the head on a platter is sensational fiction. If an execution had taken place, Antipas would undoubtedly have accomplished this through legal means. However any theories on the origins of the story can only be speculative. One must assume that Mark had access to a source which included the fully developed version. The question that then arises is did he include it in the correct chronological order within the gospel narrative? One could hypothesize that there might have been a theological reason for Mark to place John's execution before the crucifixion. If Jesus was seen to have died before John it would detract from the theological point that Jesus was paramount. CHRONOLOGICAL QUESTIONS To create a meaningful chronology the following questions have to be considered. Who was Herodias' previous husband? Philip the tetrarch seems most likely. However future research or criticism could provide an alternative candidate. What was the date of the wedding of Herodias and Antipas? Probably CE 34, but depends on 1. above. We should also note that the date of CE 34 for the death of Philip is not accepted by all, for instance the Loeb edition of Josephus Antiquities gives the date as CE 31. The Loeb edition dates from 1965, however it is still widely quoted. The date is based on Josephus' statement that Philip died in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, so the matter hinges around how the regnal years of Tiberius are to be counted. Inclusively, i.e., counting part years? Ante-dated, i.e. the count starting from when Tiberius was declared Caesar rather than when he took office? What calendar was Josephus or his source using - i.e., in what month did the year start? And of course did Josephus or his source get the date right in the first place? The date is the best we have at the moment, but no doubt there will be more attempts in the future to clarify the dates in Josephus. Was John's execution dependant on his criticism of Herodias? It seems a likely scenario, but due to the sensationalist nature of the story we cannot be sure that it historically accurate. It may be based on comments John had made about Herodias some time before, or even someone's idea of the sort of thing that John would have said. Putting words into people's mouths was common practice at the time even among serious historians. Is the gospel order correct? Did John's death occur before that of Jesus? All references in the gospels ultimately derive from Mark, and before that the source he was using. The question is did Mark insert the source in the right place? He may have had a valid reason to do so, but there are alternatives. He might have been influenced by theological considerations (if only subconsciously). Or he might have thought it was simply too good a story to leave out, and of course it does tidy up a loose end as to what happened to John the Baptist. However, whatever the reason for its inclusion, Mark would have had no choice but to insert it into the main body of the narrative because that had to end with the resurrection. The fact that the execution story is told as a parenthetical flashback outside of the main narrative flow should make us cautious before accepting that the chronology of Mark is correct. CONCLUSION If we accept that Philip was Herodias' husband prior to Antipas, that Philip died in CE 33, that the execution of John the Baptist was triggered by his comments about the marriage of Herodias and Antipas, and that the chronology in Mark is correct, then the crucifixion can only have taken place at Passover CE 35 at the earliest. If we accept the above, but consider that Philip died earlier than CE 33, then the date of the crucifixion can be pushed back a little. However, in my view, these conclusions depend on so many suppositions that it would be unwise to use them as a base for a chronology of the life of Jesus without supporting evidence from elsewhere.