JBL lll/2 (1992) 225-237

JOHN THE BAPTIST IN JOSEPHUS: PHILOLOGY AND EXEGESIS

JOHN P. MEIER
The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064

Unlike the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.3.3 $63-64), which purports to give a summary of the ministry and death of Jesus of Nazareth,' Josephus's account of John the Baptist2 in Ant. 18.5.2 gll6-1g3 does not require a lengthy defense of its authenticity. The basic text is witnessed in all relevant manuscripts of the Jewish Antiquities: and the vocabulary and style are
For a defense of the authenticity of the "core text" of the Testimonium Flavianum, once the three clearly Christian interpolations are removed, see John P. Meier, "Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal," CBQ 52 (1990) 76-103. For basic treatments of John the Baptist (pages dealing with Josephus's text are noted in brackets), see Martin Dibelius, Die urchristliche ~berlieferung von Johannes dem Tiufer (FRLANT 15; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19ll) [123-291; Maurice Goguel, Au seuil de l'ivangile: Jean-Baptiste (Paris: Payot, 1928); Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Urchristentum: 1. Buch, Johannes der Taufer (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1932) [31-361; Carl H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (New York: Scribner, 1951); Charles H. H. Scobie, John the Baptist (London: SCM, 1964) [17-221; Roland Schutz, Johannes der Taufer (ATANT 50; ZurichlStuttgart: Zwingli, 1967) [13-27; Walter Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (SNTSMS 7; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968); Jurgen Becker, Johannes der Taufer und Jesus von Nazareth (Neukirchen-Vlupn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972); Etienne Nodet, "Jesus et Jean-Baptiste selon Josephe," RB 92 (1985) 320-48, 497-524; Josef Ernst, Johannes der Taufer: InterpretationGeschichte-Wirkungsgeschichte (BZNW 53; BerlinINew York: de Grupter, 1989) [253-631; Robert L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study (JSNTSup 62; Sheffield: des Taufers Johannes: Eine Studie JSOT Press, 1991) [31-431; Knut Backhaus, Die "Jungerkreise" su den religionsgeschichtlichen Ursprungen des Christentums (Paderborner Theologische Studien 19; Paderborn: Schoningh, 1991) [266-741. For further bibliography on the Baptist in Josephus, see Louis H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship 1937-1980 (BerlinINew York: de Gruyter, 1984) 673-79, 957; idem, Josephus: A Supplementary Bibliography (New Yorkl London: Garland, 1986) 620, 675. Since almost all contemporary critics discount as later interpolations the two passages dealing with John in the so-called Old Slavonic (actually, Old Russian) version of the Jewish War, they will not be treated here. For a survey of the question, see, e.g., Dibelius, Die urchristliche ~berlieferung,127-29; Kraeling, John the Baptist, 5; Scobie, John the Baptist, 19-22; Ernst, Johannes der Taufer, 258-63; Webb, John the Baptizer, 43-44. "or alternate and conjectural readings, see the notes of Louis H. Feldman on this passage in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities: Books XVIII-XIX (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1981 [No. 433, vol. 9 of Josephus]) 80-84; and the more detailed information in the editio maior of Benedict Niese, Flat;ii Josephi Opera (7 vols.; 2d ed.; Berlin:

Journal of Biblical Literature plainly those of Josephus, especially as evidenced in books 17-19 of the Antiquities.5 Unlike the Testimonium, Josephus's treatment of the Baptist is clearly referred to by Origen in his Contra Celsum (1.47) as he seeks to prove the existence of the Baptist: "For in book 18 of the Jewish Antiquities, Josephus bears witness to John as the one who became 'the Baptist' and who The promised cleansing for those who were b a p t i ~ e d . " ~ whole text of Josephus's passage on the Baptist is given, with slight variations, by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (1.11.4-6):

Weidmann, 1955; originally 1885-95) 4. 161-62. The critically established texts of Niese and Feldman are substantially the same; some minor differences will be noted in the course of this essay. For a recent treatment of the many text-critical problems of the Antiquities, with books 1-3 used as a test case, see Etienne Nodet, Flaoius Josbphe: Les antiquitbjuiues. Volume I: Livres I a Ill. A. Introduction et t a t e (Paris: Cerf, 1990) xii-xxii. I use the phrase "a11 relevant manuscripts" because, as Nodet points out (p. xiii), the manuscripts available for text-critical work are very different for books 11-20 of the Antiquities than for books 1-10; for an extensive treatment of these manuscripts, see Niese, Flaoii Josephi Opera, 3. 111-LVII. It should be noted that Nodet's own critical text is intended only as an editio minor I am grateful to my colleague, Prof. Christopher T. Begg, for the reference to Nodet's work. For these and other arguments for authenticity, see Scobie,John the Baptist, 18-19; Webb, John the Baptizer, 39-41. Scobie emphasizes the lack of any eschatological andlor messianic proclamation by Josephus's John, as well as the very different presentation of John's death. Nevertheless, some authors have argued for knowledge of the Synoptic tradition on Josephus's part; e.g., Schiitz Uohannes der Taufer, 17) argues that Josephus knew tradition found in Mark's Gospel. The idea that Josephus knew and used Luke has a venerable parentage; for examples of the debate in the nineteenth century, see H. J. Holtzmann, "Lucas und Josephus:' ZWT 16 (1873) 85-93; M. Krenkel, "Ein Nachtrag zu dem Aufsatze: Josephus und Lucas:' ZWT 16 (1873) 441-44; E. Schiirer, "Lucas und Josephus:' ZU7T 19 (1876) 574-82; H. J. Holtzmann, "Noch einma1 Lucas und Josephus," ZWT 20 (1877) 535-49. In my view, the arguments of Scobie in favor of Josephus's independence of the four Gospels are convincing; for a similar line of argument, see Graham H. Twelftree, "Jesus in Jewish Tradition:' in Gospel Perspectioes: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels (ed. David Wenham; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985) 5. 289-341, esp. 294-95. For the vocabulary and style of the passage as Josephan, see H. St. J. Thackeray, "Josephus and Christianity," in Josephus: The Man and the Historian (The Hilda Stich Stroock Lectures; New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1929) 132, 136. t ~ ioudaikZs s archaiologias ho Idsi?pos martyrei The Greek text reads: en gar to oktdkaidekat~ For a critical to ldannc hds baptistc gegeni%nenQ kai katharsion tois baptisamenois epaggellomen~. edition, see Marcel Borret, ed., Origbne: Contre Celse: Tome I (Liures 1 et 11) (SC 132; Paris: Cerf, 1967) 198. All translations are my own. The Contra Celsum dates from ca. AD 250. It may be that Origen does not cite Josephus verbatim because Josephus's insistence that John's baptism confers only bodily purification and not forgiveness of sins contradicts the statement of Mark 1:4: baptisma metanoias eis aphesin hamartidn. For a critical text, see Gustave Bard!; Eusbbe de CBsarte: Histoire EcclBsiastique: Liores I-1V (SC 31; Paris: Cerf, 1952) 36-38. Although the dating of the Ecclesiastical History, which probably went through various stages of redaction, is debated, book 1 was most likely completed before AD 303. Section 116 and part of 117 of the Baptist passage are also cited by Eusebius (with slight variations) in his De Demonstratione Evangelica Libri Decem 9.5.15; for a critical text, see Ivar A. Heikel, ed., Eusebius Werke: Sechster Band: Die Demonstratio Eoangelica (GCS 23; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913) 416.

Meier: John the Baptist in Josephus

227

The content of the Baptist passage also argues for its authenticity. The account Josephus gives of the Baptist is literarily and theologically unconnected with the account of Jesus, which occurs earlier in book 18 and correspondingly lacks any reference to the Baptist. The passage about the Baptist, which is more than twice as long as the passage about Jesus! is also notably more laudatory. It also differs from (but does not formally contradict) the four Gospels in its presentation both of John's ministry and of his death. Hence it is hard to imagine a Christian scribe inserting into book 18 of the Antiquities two passages about Jesus and the Baptist in which the Baptist appears on the scene after Jesus dies, has no connection with Jesus, receives more extensive treatment than Jesus, and is praised more highly than Jesus. It is not surprising, therefore, that few contemporary critics question the authenticity of the Baptist passage? While neither the authenticity nor the general thrust of the Baptist passage is the subject of fierce debate, the nuance of certain phrases and therefore the precise flow of thought create difficulties for a detailed exegesis of the Greek text. The purpose of this essay is to suggest a solution to some key problems of syntax and consequently of interpretation. The basic critical text, as edited by Louis H. Feldman, is as follows:10

l l 6 Troi 66 r 6 v 'Iou6aiwv k66xer dAwXLvar rbv 'HpcjGou urparbv 3zb zoii Oeoii xai yhXa Grxaiw< rrvvup.Lvou xazh .xorv+v 'Iwhvvou zoii t.xrxaXoup.Lvou /3a.xrruroii. 117 xreivsr yhp 6+ zoiirov ' H p c j 6 q ~dryaebv Gv6pa xai TOSS'IouGaio~qxeXe6ovza dper+v k.xauxoiiurv xai t h l 1 xpbc drXXJIXou< 6rxaroaGvg xai xpb< zbv Oebv
8 The "core text" of the Testimonium Flacianum contains 60 Greek words (including particles); the passage on the Baptist, 162 words. Naturally, different judgments on text-critical questions might lead to slightly different computations; but the overall result would remain the same. For an example of a critic who does declare the Baptist passage to be an interpolation, see Leon Herrmann, Chrestos: Thoignages pai'ens et juqs sur le christianisme du premier sikcle (Collection Latomus 109; Brussels: Latomus, 1970) 99-104. Not surprisingly, Herrmann judges the Testimonium Flaeianum and even the passage on James, the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.9.1 5200), to be interpolations as well. In contrast, Per Bilde readily accepts the authenticity of the Baptist passage, although he rejects the Testimonium Flacianum as totally "a secondary Christian fabrication" (Flavius]osephus between]erusalem and Rome [Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 19881 223). l o Feldman's text is cited as the one most readily available in the United States; it is, of course, dependent on the editio maior of Niese, Flaoii Josephi Opera. The only differences in our passage are Niese's choice of tinymenou instead of tinnymenou in 5U6; hesthesun instead of srthaan and apostasei instead of stasei in 5U8; and dman instead of dma in 5U9. The only difference that would affect the meaning of the passage (and that only slightly) would be the choice of hesthean, which is discussed below. l 1 The ta before pros allelous is curious. If it is meant to b e the accusative of reference (i.e., justice with regard to those things pertaining to one another), it is strange that a balancing ta does not occur before pros ton theon. One might appeal to the variant reading found in Eusebius's citation of Josephus in his De Demonstratione Ecangelica 9.5.15: te instead of ta; but

228

Journal of Biblical Literature

edae~eia xpwpkvorc paxrrop@ ouvrkvar. oijrw yhp 831 x a i rip p&xrrarv &no8exr4v a d r q cpaveio0ar p 3 1k x i rrvov bpapr&bwv xaparr+ser xpwyfvwv, Ml' kcp' byveia 706 ahparoc, tire 831 x a i r+jc (Guxijc 8rxarodvq xposxxexa9appfvqc.

118 x a i r 8 v t i l l w v ouorpecpopkvwv, x a i yhp ~p0rjaav12 k x i xXeiarov

73 &xpo&oer. 78v l6ywv, 8eioac 'HphSqc r b k x i roo6v8e xr0avbv a6ro6 TOT< dlv0phxorq pjj k x i or&aer r r v i cpFpor, x&vta yhp kaxeoav ouppouXt 73 kxeivou xp&[ovrsc, x o l r j xpeir~ov tyeirar xpiv r r vehrepov k[ a6706 yevka0ar xpoXaPi)v &veleiv ro6 yerapoX+jq yevopkvqc [y31]13 eic xp&ypara kpxea8v p~ravoeiv. ll9 x a i 6 ykv 6xoc)iu rq 'Hph8ou 8foproq eic rbv Maxarpo6vra xeycp0eic r b xpoerpqpfvov cppo6prov raGrq xrivvurar. roic 8k 'Iou8aiorq 86[a k x i rrpwpia TYJ kxeivou rbv 6le0pov k x i rq arpare6parr yevka0ar ro6 0eo6 xax8aar 'Hph8qv 0fXovroc.

As with the study of NT texts, the first step in any analysis, after basic text criticism, is the delimitation of the literary unit. Josephus seems to have been at pains to make clear the beginning and the end of the Baptist passage, perhaps because it was for him a minor parenthesis in the much larger story of Herod Antipas, Agrippa I, and other Herodians. Hence Josephus clearly "packages" his aside about the Baptist with an inclusio: certain key words and key themes occur in a cluster at the very beginning (5U.6 and the first words of 5U7) and the very end (5U.9) of the passage.

tisi de ton Ioudaion ("but to some of the Jews") edokei ("it seemed) olblenai ("to have perished," "be destroyed") ton HZrcidou straton ("the army of Herod")

tois de Ioudaiois ("but to the Jews") doxa ("the opinion [was]") olethron ("destruction") te strateumati . . . HZriidZn ("the army. . . H e r o d )

this could simply be a scribal correction. It is noteworthy that the Epistle to the Hebrews uses the phrase ta pros ton theon in Heb 2:17, hina gendtai . . . pistos archiereus ta pros ton theon; and 5:1, pas gar archiereus. . . kathistatai ta pros ton theon. l 2 Feldman rightly rejects the alternate reading favored by Niese (from Eusebius) of k s t h ~ s a n"they , enjoyed:' "they took pleasure in: "they delighted in:' That people were extremely stirred up, excited, agitated, or carried away (brthbsan)by John's words makes much better sense is not witnessed universally in the manuscripts as the cause of Herod's fear. Moreover, h~sthdsan of Eusebius, and the manuscripts of Josephus favor drthdsan. l 3 md is omitted by Eusebius and is put in brackets by both Niese and Feldman. It may come from the lingering idea of the object of Herod's fear (deisas).In any case, it does not affect the sense of the passage or its translation.

Meier: John the Baptist in Josephus

tou theou + ("God [in genitive]) tinnymenou ("punishing" [Herod]) kata poindn Ioannou ("to avenge [what he did] to John") kteinei ([Herod] "kills" [John])

tou theou + ("God [in genitive]) kakosai . . . thelontos ("wishing to do evil" [to Herod]) epi timarip t@ekeinou ("to avenge John") ktinnytai (Dohn] "is killed [by Herod])

Thus, with the same or similar words, grouped in roughly the same order, Josephus reiterates the theme that (some) Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army by the Nabatean king Aretas IV was God's just punishment inflicted on Herod Antipas to avenge his killing of John the Baptist. Since this is Josephus's own conscious framework for the pericope, it is advisable to view as the significant literary unit the whole Baptist passage from $ll6 to Sll9, and not simply from Sll7 to the beginning of $U9, as Josef Ernst and some other commentators $ll6 is fairly straightforward, with the only problematic phrase being tinnymenou kata poindn. In the middle form and with an obviously negative connotation, the verb must mean "avenge" or "punish and must modify theou, the closest noun in the genitive, with Herod as the understood object. The sense is therefore: "God indeed punishing [Herod] quite justly." The laconic kata poindn 16annou must accordingly mean something like "to avenge what Herod had done to John." This likewise seems to be the sense of the equally compressed epi timarip t@ekeinou in $U9. In $117 things become more complicated, as Josephus begins to explain how John's successful but apparently harmless ministry of promoting virtue led to his execution by Antipas. The basic structure of the first sentence is simple enough: Herod killed15 him, although16 he was a good man, a man who bade the Jews join in baptism!' More troublesome are the two participles
l 4 See Ernst, Johannes der Eufer, 253; the translation Ernst supplies in n. 1 unfortunately omits some words and introduces concepts not present in the Greek text. For example, ktinnytai is translated "enthauptet:' which introduces into Josephus the idea of beheading, found only in the Synoptic Gospels. l 5 For the sake of vivid narration, Josephus puts both references to Antipas's killing of John into the historical present tense (kteinei in $117 and ktinnytai in $119). In my translation, I put all the verbs into the past tense. l 6 The adjective agathon is pointedly separated from touton by H ~ r 6 d ~ and s is clearly in the predicate rather than attributive position; likewise, the participle keleuonta is circumstantial rather than attributive. The context, with its sharp bipolar contrast between the idea of killing and the idea of a good man, makes the adversative sense of agathon and keleuonta obvious. I' Whether baptism^ synienai means "join in baptism," "be united in baptism," or "come together for a group baptism" need not concern us here. In general, commentators tend to read more into these various phrases than the words themselves demand; the decision as to whether John was a leader of a nationalist or perhaps even a revolutionary movement hardly turns on

Journal of Biblical Literature modifying tois loudaiois, epaskousin and chromenois. They are placed outside the article-noun combination and hence should be judged circumstantial rather than attributive in sense. To translate them merely as relative clauses ("the Jews who cultivated virtue and practiced justice and piety")18 misses the precise syntactical point. Distinguished scholars like Klausner, Feldman, and Ernst resolve the difficulty of rendering this convoluted sentence by using English parataxis in place of Greek hypotaxis:19John commanded the Jews to cultivate virtue, practice justice and piety, and join in baptism. While this is a common technique in dealing with periodic sentences in Latin and Greek, it may be missing a fine point here. What exactly is Josephus expressing by these circumstantial participles? One way to answer this question is to look ahead to the next sentence, which offers an explanation or reason (gar de kai) for what John did in terms of John's own thought (autg phaneisthai). The explanation states that, in John's view, his baptism of these Jews was acceptable to God (ap~dektEn)~O $and only ifthey used this rite not as a means to obtain ~ a r d o n of certain sins but as a means of purifying their bodies. This was all that his baptism need or could do, since in fact (hate dE) their souls had already been cleansed by justice. Once again, as in the previous sentence, we find the verb chraomai
this one phrase (cf. Lohmeyer's interpretation that John was leading a national reform movement of Jews who "were uniting themselves" as God's people by means of John's baptism [Das Urchristentum, 31-32]). Ernst is probably correct when he summarizes the sense of the phrase this way: "Die Juden stromten zusammen zur Taufe, um sich dann wieder recht bald zu zerstreuen. Die Bildung esoterischer Zirkel hat dem Taufer genauso ferngelegen wie die Sammlung zu einem Volksaufstand Uohannes der Taufer, 255). In n. 7 he observes that baptismp synienai may be compared to much&synienai, "to go to war," "to engage in battle:' For a similar view, see Backhaus, who strongly opposes any idea of the Baptist's founding of a circle or sect by using baptism as an initiation rite Uiingerkreise, 268-72). In this he differs from IIermann Lichtenberger, who presents a fanciful reading of Josephus's description of the Baptist: it is an implicit polemic against disciples of the Baptist who resided in Rome toward the end of the first century AD ("Taufergemeinden und friihchristliche Tauferpolemik im letzten Drittel des 1.Jahrhunderts:' ZTK 84 [I9871 36-57). l 8 This is the translation used by Scobie,]ohn the Baptist, 17; he takes it over from H . St John Thackeray. l 9 See Joseph Klausner, Iesus of Nazareth: His Lqe, Times, and Teaching (New York: Macmillan, 1925; Hebrew original 1922) 239; Feldman, ]osephus: lewish Antiquities, 81; Ernst, lohannes der Ta'ufer, 253. 20 The phrase "to G o d is of course not present in the Greek, and the word apodektos need not carry this sense, even in a religious context (cf. the Epistle to Diognetus 8:3: 'And yet if any of these arguments is acceptable [apodektos] . . :'). I think, however, that Feldman and Ernst are correct in supplying it in the Baptist passage. It is the natural sense of the word in its context (what sense would it make to say that John thought that the baptism would b e acceptable to John?), and it is supported by the two uses of apodektos in the NT (1 Tim 2:3; 5:4).Yet one must remain modest in one's claims, since this is the only time that the word appears in the whole corpus of Josephus's works; it never occurs in the LXX. For the dispute over whether the more accurate translation is "acceptable to" or "pleasing to:' see Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriflen des Neuen Testaments und der friihchristlichen Literatur (6th ed.; ed. Kurt and Barbara Aland; BerlinlSew York: de Gruyter, 1988) 179.

Meier: John the Baptist in Josephus

231

used as a participle in the circumstantial position describing some activity of those baptized; hence it is quite reasonable to suppose that the same noun, Ioudaiois, is understood, though now in the genitive, as the genitive absolute construction demands. Given the context, which is discussing the condition under which John's baptism is acceptable to God, the translation "if" for the genitive absolute seems most likely and is used by both Feldman and Ernst. Now, if chraomai, used as a circumstantial participle describing the Jews, is employed to express a condition for baptism in the second sentence of SU7, it may well be that in the immediately previous sentence the same verb (along with epaskousin), used likewise as a circumstantial participle describing "the Jews" and specifying some circumstance of receiving baptism, carries the same conditional sense-especially since the second sentence claims to give the explanation or reason for the previous sentence. The first sentence in $117 would therefore read: "For Herod in fact killed him, although he was a good man and bade the Jews -if [or: provided that] they were cultivating virtue and practicing justice toward one another and piety toward God-to join in baptism:' If this translation is correct, the practice of virtue is not one of the direct objects of John's command but rather the necessary precondition for obeying the one central command of the Baptist, namely, to be baptized, the only concept that is made the direct object of keleuonta. Only by construing the Greek in this way is the special function of the circumstantial participles in serving Josephus's purpose fully recognized. Josephus is at pains to stress that John's baptism is not a magical substitute for or producer of virtue, just as in the following sentence he stresses that John's baptism washes away pollution from bodies, not sins from souls?' Accordingly, John addresses his offer of baptism to Jews on the condition that they are already practicing virtue. A proper appreciation of the circumstantial participles, employed in a conditional sense in both sentences, is therefore of great importance for grasping the thrust of the whole passage. This understanding of tois loudaiois in U7 as conditioned by the two circumstantial participles helps in turn to explain the curious kai ton allfin
Z 1 Josephus seems to be consciously combating the type of understanding of John's baptism that we find in Mark 1:4 1 1 Luke 3:3, baptisma metanoias eis aphesin hamartidn (noticeably lacking in the Matthean parallel, Matt 3:l-6). Since, in my opinion, there is no probative evidence that Josephus knew any of the four Gospels, it is possible that he is reacting here to claims put forward by followers of John the Baptist, some of whom continued to be active throughout the first century AD. Perhaps Josephus felt that such claims made John's baptism a magical rite that would not appeal to the cultivated Greco-Roman milieu for whom Josephus was writing. The Baptist is accordingly transformed from a preacher of eschatological judgment and the administrator of an eschatological "sacrament" into a Greco-Roman popular philosopher exhorting his fellow citizens to virtue. The combination of exhortation to virtue and concern about a lustration to purify the body gives us a fittingly syncretistic image of a Stoic moralist with a neo-Pythagorean ritual. The attempt by Schiitz Uohannes der Ta'ufer, 26) to read Josephus as saying that the cleansing of both soul and body took place in John's baptism goes against the obvious sense of the text.

Journal of Biblical Literature at the beginning of 9 1 W 2 At first glance, the previous concentration of the passage on "the Jews" as the audience of John's preaching might conjure up the idea that the unspecified "others" are Gentiles. There is no support for such an idea in the four Gospels, but such a double audience would parallel what Josephus (quite mistakenly) says about Jesus' audience in Ant. 18.3.3 $63 (kai pollous men Ioudaious, pollous de kai tou Hellgnikou epggageto). . , However, if we are correct that epaskousin and chromenois in $117 express conditions qualifying tois loudaiois, there is no need to go outside the immediate context to understand who "the others" at the beginning of $118 are. In $117 John calls to baptism only those Jews who fulfill a particular condition: they are already cultivating a life of virtue. Notice that Josephus gives no indication that this gathering of notably virtuous people around John gave Herod cause for alarm. Indeed, why should Herod have been alarmed? Josephus makes no mention at this point of great agitation on the part of the baptized or of their being ready to do whatever John counseled. Moreover, exceptionally virtuous persons do not usually form the vast majority of people in any given society, and the peaceful gathering of such virtuous persons merely to receive a religious rite is not usually the cause of grave concern among politicians. But if that is the type of Jew being specified in $U7, "the others" in $ll8would seem to refer to the rest of the Jewish population, the larger group of ordinary people who, as in most other societies, neither rejected their religious heritage nor engaged in the heroic feats of virtue and religious observance that marked sectarians. It is not by accident that when "the others:' the larger general population, are introduced into the narrative, we hear about excitement (grthdsan), John's persuasive power over people in general (note the generic tois anthropois), and Herod's fear that all this could lead to r e ~ o l t Josephus, ?~ however, is emphatic in attributing any idea of revolt to the mind of Herod, not to the Baptist or the people. He goes on to stress that Herod quite consciously undertook a preemptive strike (prolabon) in doing away (anelein) with John. The preacher of virtue and bodily purification might be quite harmless when addressing a religious elite; and even when the common people flocked to him, he did not-at least for the present-urge revolt. But things might change (metabolds genomenes); so better safe than sorry (kreitton . . . anelein tou . . . met~noein)?~ This emphasis
-

2%all6n obviously created difficulty for both ancient and modern readers: the correction ladn is found in codex A and perplurima multitude in the Latin version, while Siese offers the conjectural emendation anthropon and Robert Eisler polkin (see Feldman, Josephus, 82). All these attempts arise from a failure to understand Josephus's own movement of thought. 23 This interpretation of tdn a&n is found in F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity: Part I: The k t s of the Apostles (5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979, originally 1920-33) 1. 102-3; but there it is not based on an explanation of the two circumstantial participles as equivalent to conditional clauses. There is a poignant and-on Josephus's part-unintended irony in the use of metanoed for the deliberations of Herod that led to John's execution. Unlike the Synoptics, Josephus says nothing explicit about John as a preacher of metanoia

"

Meier: John the Baptist in Josephus on the fact that John's death stemmed from the subjective suspicion of Herod rather than from any objective act of John is repeated at the beginning of $119 by the phrase hypopsip tg HErGdou. $119 then goes on to serve two functions: (1) it rounds out the pericope with the inclusio that brings us back to the opening affirmation of $U6, and (2) it connects the whole parenthetical Baptist passage with the ongoing Herodian saga, which continues in $120 with the preparations for the expedition of Vitellius, the Roman governor of Syria, to punish Aretas IV. These philological and exegetical considerations produce the following translation, in which the elements of the inclusio are set in bold print, the key elements in the progression of thought are capitalized, and explanatory comments supplied by the translator are put in brackets:
5U6. But to some of the Jews it seemed that the army of Herod was destroyed by God -indeed, God quite justly punishing [Herod] to avenge what he had done to John, who was surnamed the Baptist.

$117. For Herod killed him, although he was a good man and [simply] bade the Jews to join in baptism, PROVIDED THAT they were cultivating virtue and practicing justice toward one another and piety toward God. FOR [ONLY] THUS, in John's opinion, would the baptism [he administered] indeed be acceptable [to God], namely, I F they used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, INASMUCH AS [it was taken for granted that] their souls had already been purified by justice.

gL18. And when T H E OTHERS [namely, ordinary Jews] gathered together [around John] -for their excitement reached fever pitch as they listened to [his] words-Herod began to FEARz5 that John's powerful ability to persuade PEOPLE might lead to some sort of revolt, for they seemed likely to do whatever he counseled. So [Herod] decided to do away with John by a PREEMPTIVE STRIKE, before he sparked a revolt. Herod considered this a much better [course of action] than to wait until the situation changed and [then] to regret [his delay] when he was engulfed by a crisis.
5U9. And so, because of Herod's suspicion, John was sent in chains to Machaerus, the mountain fortress previously mentioned; there he was killed. But the Jews were of the opinion that the army was destroyed to avenge John, God wishing to inflict harm on Herod.

The movement of thought is thus clear. $116 introduces the theme of the destruction of Herod's army by God to avenge Herod's killing of John. $117 begins the "flashback in which John is presented as a harmless dispenser of a water ritual, given to Jews on the condition that they are practicing justice and piety. In $118 "the plot thickens" as larger groups of ordinary Jews, as opposed to the original, select audience of the virtuous, swarm around John
25

Since this sentence is so lengthy and convoluted, I have decided to turn the participle

deisas into a main verb; the causal nexus remains clear from the context. I use the phrase "began

to fear" since it is only the gathering of this second group, not the initial preaching to the more virtuous sort, that triggers Herod's anxiet).

234

Journal of Biblical Literature

and are so stirred up by his sermons that they seem -at least to the mind of the fearful Herod-ready to follow John wherever he might lead, even to insurrection. This is the new development that determines the anxious Herod to make a preemptive strike before it is too late. Hence in U9 the suspicions of Herod lead to John's imprisonment and death, a crime God punishes by the destruction of Herod's army (inclusio and transition to Vitellius's intervention). It is axiomatic that the portraits of John the Baptist in Josephus and in each of the four Gospels must be studied separately and only then brought together for comparison, contrast, and possible correlation (not harmonization). Having looked at Josephus's presentation of the Baptist on its own terms, I would make three tentative suggestions as to how this "close reading" of the vocabulary, syntax, and structure of the Baptist passage in the Antiquities might contribute to the study of the Gospels: (1)From the initial stark juxtaposition of kteinei and agathon onwards, Josephus's intention in describing the Baptist is obviously apologetic. Any idea of John's fiery eschatological proclamation of a day of judgment that will make irrelevant all ethnic ties, a judgment to be administered by a mysterious figure to come, a judgment that can be avoided only by submitting to John's baptism of repentance - in short, all these strange, disruptive, or disturbing ideas can have no place in Josephus's presentation, if indeed he ever had any knowledge of them. If Josephus did know these aspects of the Baptist's message, he naturally suppressed them, since he regularly plays down or removes eschatological and messianic expectations present in his sources.26One need only think of his presentation of the Essenes compared to the various eschatological and messianic hopes expressed in the literature of Qumran. Accordingly, in Josephus John is reduced to a popular moral philosopher in the Greco-Roman mode, with a slight hint of a neo-Pythagorean performing ritual lustrations. The whole point of a special baptism, to be administered to Jews only by John (hence his surname), becomes unintelligible. If the Synoptic portrait of the Baptist did not exist, something like it would have to be invented to supply the material that Josephus either suppresses or simply does not know. In a sense, Josephus's portrait of the Baptist is self-transcending; it points beyond itself to some further explanation Josephus does not offer. (2) Still, even when we grant Josephus's apologetic purpose that leads to a very slanted depiction of the Baptist, there is no reason for thinking that one major aspect of his presentation is wrong-namely, that John's program was a religious one without an activist political agenda and that it was only
08 This observation is a commonplace among students o f Josephus; see, e.g., Dibelius, Die urchristliche ~berlieferung, 124. Klausner, Jesus ofNazareth, 241; Scobie,John the Baptist, 18-19; Ernst,Johannes der Eufer, 254; Backhaus, Jiingerkreise, 267-68; E . P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief; 63 BCE-66 CE (London: S C M , 1992) 368.

Meier: John the Baptist in Josephus

235

Herod's fear and overactive instinct for survival that led him to see political danger in a preacher of morality who baptized people.27This is not to deny that, unlike our experience of separation of church and state in a secularized Western democracy, religion permeated human life in the ancient Mediterranean world in general and in Palestine in particular. Yet Josephus, like some other ancient writers, is perfectly capable of distinguishing a religious leader with no activist political agenda from other religious leaders with just such an agenda. As a matter of fact, both in theJewish War and in the Jewish Antiquities, Josephus does present Jewish religious figures whose actions threaten the political establishment and who accordingly meet speedy opposition at the establishment's hands28 Since Josephus has no personal stake in the
27 On the "exclusively religious preoccupations of John:' see Goguel, Au seuil, 287. This is not to deny that in first-century Palestine, the religious activity of a prophetic figure might be viewed by a nervous ruler as possibly having negative political consequences. But to refuse to distinguish what John intended in his preaching and ministry and what Herod feared, as Paul W. Hollenbach does ("Social Aspects of John the Baptizer's Preaching Mission in the Context of Palestinian Judaism," ANRW 11119.1 [I9791 850-75, esp. 863-64), is just as nayve as to fail to grasp that religious activity in first-century Palestine could, apart from the intention of the agent, be feared by others to hold political consequences. To claim, as Hollenbach does (p. 874) that John was "a social revolutionary" is to confuse our contemporary desire for instant relevance with sober exegesis and historical reconstruction. Interestingly, recasting the Baptist as a revolutionary brings us back to Hermann Samuel Reimarus; cf. the remarks of John Reumann, "The Quest for the Historical Baptist:' in Understanding the Sacred Text (Morton S. Enslin Festschrift; ed. John Reumann; Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1972) 183-200, esp. 184-86. Such an approach has had many proponents, some more hesitant than others; see, e.g., C. C. McCown, "The Scene of John's Ministry and Its Relation to the Purpose and Outcome of His Mission:'JBL 59 (1940) ll3-31. 28 See, e.g., Josephus's description of Theudas in Ant. 20.5.1 997-99 (cf. the garbled reference in Acts 5 3 6 ) and "the Egyptian false prophet" in J.W 2.13.5 9261-63 (cf. Ant. 20.8.6 $169-72; Acts 21:38). For an attempt to sort out such various figures by using the categories of bandits, messiahs, prophets, the fourth philosophy, sicarii, and zealots, see Richard A. Horsley and John S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Mot'ements in the Time ofJesus (Minneapolis1 ChicagoiNew York: Winston, 1985). Quite different from organizers of large bands of people ready to act against the establishment is the solitary Jesus son of Hananiah, an oracular prophet of judgment active in Jerusalem for the last seven years of its existence; see J.U! 6.5.3 $300-309. Horsley and Hanson put John the Baptist into the same category as Jesus son of Hananiah and remark: "Nothing in our texts indicates that fohn intended to found a sect or lead a mass movement in a decisive eschatological event of deliverance. In preaching the baptism of repentance he was attempting to prepare the people, apparently even across class and sectarian lines, for the impending judgment" (Bandits, 178). Against Horsely and Hanson, Webb uohn the Baptizer, 349-78) who adopts a typology of prophets somewhat different from theirs, places the Baptist in the same basic category as the Egyptian and Theudas, that is, "leadership popular prophets:' I think this is questionable, since there are significant differences between the Baptist and leaders like the E g p t i a n and Theudas-as LVebb himself admits. (1) Most of those baptized by John soon returned to their homes, presumably scattered throughout Palestine. There is no indication that those previously baptized by John ever returned at one time and as one group either to live with the Baptist or to follow him on some march. Hence there never was at any one time the kind of huge massing of people around the Baptist that there was around, for example, the E g p t i a n . (2) The "leader-

Journal of Biblical Literature reputation of the Baptist, his care to distinguish John from such types probably has a basis in fact. The pattern of the purely religious figure, whose growing success leads the rulers of Palestine to fear his possible political influence and whose execution is therefore considered a wise preventive measure, must therefore be taken seriously when the historical question of the trial and death of Jesus is considered.29 (3) While Josephus's depiction of the Baptist as a moral preacher concerned with virtue owes a great deal to the author's accommodation to his Greco-Roman milieu, it must be granted that Josephus agrees to a certain extent with Luke's special material on the Baptist (Luke 3:lO-14). There too the Baptist is presented as inculcating practical deeds of social justice. This correlation might simply be chalked up to two Greco-Roman writers (Josephus and Luke) who, independently of each other, seek to adapt a strange Jewish prophet to cultural models familiar in the wider Greco-Roman world.30 Yet Luke's material, if traditional2l may supply further "missing links" in Josephus's narrative. Luke divides the various questioners seeking moral catechesis into three groups: the crowds, tax collectors, and soldiers. The intriguing point here is that tax collectors and soldiers might have counted among "the others," the ordinary, not-especially-religious Jews who,

ship popular prophets" not only gathered a large number of followers around themselves at one time; they also proceeded to lead them on a march to some venerable spot of Israelite history in what could only appear to the ruling authorities as an intentionally provocative act (e.g., the Egyptian led his large group to the Mount of Olives, facing Jerusalem). (3) In the case of the "leadership popular prophets:' the authorities deemed it necessary to kill or capture many of the prophets' followers. They, as well as their leaders, were seen to be a real and present danger. As far as we know, nothing similar happened even to those disciples of John who lived in his entourage, to say nothing of the larger group of followers baptized by him. Although he grants most of these points, Webb tries to play down their importance. Cumulatively, however, they argue strongly that the Baptist's "movement" was significantly and perhaps essentially different from the movements of Webb's "leadership popular prophets." 29 It is curious that Josephus, while so detailed in his explanation of why John was executed, is totally silent on the precise reason why the Jewish leaders accused Jesus before Pilate and why Pilate decided to crucify him (Ant. 18.3.3 $64). 3O Ernst notes the similarity between the presentation of Josephus and that of Luke Uohannes der Tiiufer, 257). 3 1 Joseph A. Fitzmyer (The Gospel According to Luke [AB 28 and 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981, 19851 1. 464) rightly refers to these verses as "problematic" when it comes to the question of sources; various commentators have championed Q (A. Plummer, H. Schiirmann), L, or Lucan redaction (a possibility Fitzmyer leaves open). I. Howard Marshall argues that, since the L source contains no other tradition about the Baptist, Q is the more likely source; Marshall defends the sayings as "the Baptist's teaching, shaped by catechetical use" (The Gospel o f Luke [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19781 142).

Meier: John the Baptist in Josephus according to Josephus, formed the "second wave" flocking to J0hn.3~ The fact that such important props of Antipas's financial and military power as tax collectors and soldiers had come under the influence of John and fervently hung on his every word may have been the Realpolitik consideration that especially alarmed the tetrarch and moved him to his preemptive strike. He did not care if some virtuous elite listened to John; he did care if his tax collectors and soldiers were taking orders from a different commander. While Luke is of course pursuing his own theological purpose with his special material, he may have inadvertently thrown some light on the mysterious t6n allbn of Ant. 18.5.2 U8 and specifically on the reason why, in the mind of the fearful Herod, the adherence of "the others" to John was a danger that could not be tolerated.
3 2 Along with the problem of the source of Luke 3:lO-14 there is the further problem of the ethnic makeup of the strateumenoi ("those on military duty") who came to John. Various commentators declare them Gentiles (Walter Grundmann, Das Eoangelium nach Lukas [THKNT 3; 7th ed.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 19741 104), either Gentiles or Jews (Josef Ernst, Das Eoangelium nach Lukas [RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1977 144), or Jews enlisted in the service of Herod Antipas (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 1. 470). While the matter is by no means clear, it seems likely that the army of Antipas included at least some Jewish soldiers. A few commentators (e.g., Joachim Jeremias, Nec Testament Theology: Part One, The Proclamation of Jesus [London: SCM, 19711 48 n. 3) prefer to think of "police who accompanied the taxcollectors. They would therefore have been Jews:' M.-J. Lagrange thinks these people came from Judea rather than from the forces of Antipas in Perea (Eoangile selon Saint Luc [EBib; 4th ed.; Paris: Gabalda, 1927 109-10). The whole problem exists only on the level of the historical event andlor early tradition. As Prof. Louis H. Feldman kindly pointed out to me in a letter (Nov. 14, 1990), Luke's redaction, which places 3:lO-14 almost immediately after 3:8 ("Do not begin to think: 'We have Abraham as [our] father . . "') seems to presume that the entire audience listening to John's exhortation is Jewish.