| 48. The execution of John the Baptist. | ||||
WE here take under our examination, by way of appendix, all that has been transmitted to us concerning the tragic end of the Baptist. According to the unanimous testimony of the synoptic evangelists and Josephus, he was executed, after a protracted imprisonment, by order of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee; and in the New Testament accounts he is said to have-been beheaded. (Matt. xiv.3ff.; Mark vi.17ff.; Luke ix. 9.) | ||||
But Josephus and the evangelists are at variance as to the cause of his imprisonment and execution. According to the latter, the censure which John had pronounced on the marriage of Herod with his (half) brother's wife, was the cause of his imprisonment, and the revengeful cunning of Herodias, at a court festival, of his death: | ||||
Josephus gives the fear of disturbances, which was awakened in Herod by the formidable train of the Baptist's followers, as the cause at once of the imprisonment and the execution. If these two accounts be considered as distinct and irreconcileable, it may be doubted which of the two deserves the preference. It is not here as in the case of Herod Agrippa's death. Acts xii. 23., viz, that the New Testament narrative, by intermixing a supernatural cause where Josephus has only a natural one, enables us to prejudge it as unhistorical; on the contrary, we might here give the palm to the Gospel narrative, for the particularity of its details. But on the other hand, it must be considered that that very particularity, and especially the conversion of a political into a personal motive, corresponds fully to the development of the legendary spirit among the people, whose imagination is more at home in domestic than in political circles. Meanwhile it is quite possible to reconcile the two narratives. This has been attempted by conjecturing, that the fear of insurrection was the proper cabinet motive for the imprisonment of the Baptist, while the irreverent censure passed on the ruler was thrust forward as the ostensible motive. But I greatly doubt whether Herod would designedly expose the scandalous point touched on by John; it is more likely, if a distinction is to be here made between a private and ostensible cause, that the censure of the marriage was the secret reason, and the fear of insurrection disseminated as an excuse for extreme severity. Such a distinction, however, is not needed; for Antipas might well fear, that John, by his strong censure of the marriage and the whole course of the tetrarch's life, might stir up the people into rebellion against him. | ||||
But there is a diversity even between the Gospel narratives themselves, not only in this, that Mark gives the scene at the feast {P.241} with the most graphic details, while Luke is satisfied with a concise statement (iii. 18-20; ix. 9), and Matthew takes a middle course; but Mark's representation of the relation between Herod and the Baptist differs essentially from that of Matthew. While according to the latter, Herod wished to kill John, but was withheld by his dread of the people, who looked on the Baptist as a prophet (v. 5); according to Mark, it was Herodias who conspired against his life, but could not attain her object, because her husband was in awe of John as a holy man, sometimes heard him gladly, and not seldom followed his counsel (v. 19). Here, again, the individualizing characteristic of Mark's narrative has induced commentators to prefer it to that of Matthew. But in the finishing touches and alterations of Mark we may detect the hand of tradition; especially as Josephus merely says of the people, that they gave ear to the sound of his words, while he says of Herod, that having conceived fears of John, he judged it expedient to put him to death. How near lay the temptation to exalt the Baptist, by representing the prince against whom he had spoken, and by whom he was imprisoned, as feeling bound to venerate him, and only, to his remorse, seduced into giving his death-warrant, by his vindictive wife! It may be added, that the account of Matthew is not inconsistent with the character of Antipas, as gathered from other sources. | ||||
The close of the Gospel narratives leaves the impression that the severed head of John was presented at table, and that the prison was consequently close at hand. But we learn from the passage in Josephus above cited, that the Baptist was confined in Machaerus, a fortress on the southern border of Persia, whereas the residence of Herod was in Tiberias, a day's journey distant from Machaerus. Hence the head of John the Baptist could only be presented to Herod after two day's journey, and not while he yet sat at table. The contradiction here apparent is not to be removed by the consideration, that it is not expressly said in the Gospels that John's head was brought in during the meal, for this is necessarily inferred from the entire narrative. Not, only are the commission of the executioner and his return with the head, detailed in immediate connection with the incidents of the meal; but, only thus has the whole dramatic scene its appropriate conclusion only thus is the contrast complete, which is formed by the death-warrant and the feast: in fine, the platter on which the dissevered head is presented, marks it as the costliest viand which the unnatural revenge of a woman could desire at table. But we have, as a probable solution, the information of Josephus, that Herod Antipas was then at war with the Arabian king, Aretas, between whose kingdom and his own lay the fortress of Machaerus; and there Herod might possibly have resided with his court at that period. | ||||
Thus we see that the life of John in the Gospel narratives is, from easily conceived reasons, overspread with mythical lustre on the side which is turned toward Jesus, while on the other its historical lineaments, are more visible. | ||||