Title: Mark's Gospel Special Lecture [Lecture 38]
Content 11. The horror of Herod who killed John the Baptist [6:14-29]
Mark wrote nothing about where and what Jesus was doing while the disciples went out to preach. In the meantime, Mark fills the world's evaluation of Jesus, Herod's fear of Jesus, and the account of John the Baptist's death.
“Among comparable styles are Hellenistic accounts of martyrs and Judaism reports of martyrs. The former concentrates on the defense of the martyrs in the course of the trial, while the latter focuses on the description of the suffering the martyr suffered because of the law, thereby demonstrating his piety. The martyr not only refuses to violate the law, but acts like a guardian of the law. He stands proudly before the kings and princes of the world who fight against the Word and Law of God. Elements of this martyr image are also evident in this report” (J. Gnilka, pp. 313-314). Even so, for that reason it is too hasty to conclude 1) that this article is a compilation of quotations from such traditions.
In particular, the historical integrity of vv. 17-29 has been seriously challenged. The differences alleged to exist between Mark and Josephus relate to (1) the name of Herodias' first husband, (2) the reason John was executed, and (3) the place of imprisonment and execution.
(1) W. L. Lane states that “Josephus states that Herodias' first husband was Herod, the son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II, and half-brother of Antipas. Mark identifies this man with Philip. However, since almost all of the sons of Herod the Great used the name 'Herod' as a family title (eg Herod Archelaus, Herod Philip, Herod Antipas, and his grandson Herod Agrippa), there is no contradiction. .山口 昇 said, “Josephus should be regarded as referring to Herod Philip only as Herod, and Mark as only referring to Philip as Philip.”
(2) W. L. Lane writes, “The report of Josephus that Herod imprisoned and executed John the Baptist for fear of political unrest that might arise from his leadership is entirely understandable. Antipas' territory included the narrow and long Berea, which bordered the kingdom of Nabatia. The marriage between Herod and Herodias first demanded a divorce from his wife, the daughter of Arethas IV of Nabatia. Therefore, it is clear that John's declaration of the lawlessness of unions, such as Herod's adultery, could have been interpreted as inciting a riot that threatened Herod from within as seriously as it offended the Nabataeans east of Herod's realm. It is certainly.
Mark, who has a very different interest from Josephus, emphasizes the cunning of Herodias. This emphasis is entirely consistent with what Josephus reports about the active role played by the women and their conspiracies in the action of Herodias. Therefore, there is no good reason to doubt the historical accuracy of the Mark's tale for this account.” On this matter, Yamaguchi 昇 said, "You might think that Herod's political motives and Herodias' personal hatred formed a common front for the common purpose of killing John. In fact, these quarrels were everywhere, anytime.
(3) W. L. Lane states that "Josephus states that Herod sent John to the palace and fortress of Macherus at the southern end of Berea, bordering the northeast corner of the Dead Sea." Mark made no mention of it at all. Scholars who deny the historicity of this tradition consider it to be Tiberias of Galilee, the capital of Herod's realm, citing "there was a feast with the nobles of Galilee" in verse 21. However, there cannot be sufficient grounds for thinking so.
The argument that the historicity cannot be recognized because Mark's narrative reminds us of the battle between Elijah and Jezebel is more plausible because Jesus identifies John with Elijah (9:11-13). It is also plausible to argue that the historicality cannot be recognized because it is parallel to the story of Esther. However, incidents or stories with such a degree of similarity or relevance can be found all over the world.山口 昇 said, “It is only pure conjecture to say that this tradition is a creation based on these tales based on a similar tone from a literary point of view.”
The idea that Herodias' daughter, a princess, could not be demeaned by a sensual dance at a royal feast is unacceptable given the moral corruption of Herod's line. This was quite possible considering that her dance was at the crafty direction of Herodias (v. 24).
E. Schweizer believes that historical events are colored by a legendary element, and that one of the disciples of John the Baptist saw John as the return of Elijah and created this tradition. However, no solid evidence has yet been found to support such an idea.
In the end, the story of Mark should be regarded as a record of the incident that occurred first. As W. L. Lane said, "Mark is a description of what was said at that time."
end. Herod's Terror
Mark 6:14
Mark begins this account, [14] And when the name of Jesus was revealed, when King Herod heard it, he said, "John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and therefore these powers work in him."
It can be said that Jesus' fame grew and even King Herod heard about it as a result of the disciples' missionary work in Galilee, especially Jesus' splendid activities.
King Herod refers to Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great (Herod I) and Marianne (Matthew 14:1-7, Luke 8:1-19, 8:3, 9:7, 13:31, 23:7 -15, Acts 4:27, 13:1 (cf. Matt. 2:1-19, Luke 1:5 → Herod the Great). After Herod the Great's death, he became tetrarch of all Galilee and Berea at the age of 16. Regarding his reign, W. Hendriksen said 4 to 39 AD, but WL Lane, E. Schweizer, 山口 昇, AE Sanner, Lee Sang-geun, etc. 4 BC It is said to be AD 39. Considering that his father died in 4 B.C., the latter seems to be correct.
Strictly speaking, he was not a general king, but a tetrarch (Matthew 14:1, Luke 9:7). “He later tried to gain the rank of king in Rome, but was unsuccessful” (W. W. Wessel, J. Gnilka, p. 315). “It must have been according to local customs, or a sarcastic fight, that Mark referred to him as king” (W. L. Lane, W. W. Wessel).
He was a man with a dull political sense. In this regard, W. L. L-ane writes, “His total disregard for the sensibility of his bond is revealed not only in his marriage to Herodias, but also in his choice of the old cemetery as the seat of his capital, Tiberias. By this choice he eventually expelled the Jewish settlers. For to live in that city was, in terms of the ceremonial law, to render the Jews permanently unclean.”
“His character is closely related to his family, which was characterized by intrigue, violence, and murder. “He was a carnal, cunning, capricious, cruel, foolish, impolite, superstitious, and tyrannical lord (Matthew 14:9; Luke 3:19; 13:31, 32).” 2)
It feels too late for Herod Antipas to hear of Jesus, because “the palace where he lived which was supposedly Macaerus [fortress] on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea was too far from Capernaum” (W. Hendriksen).
When King Herod heard it, he said (…κα? ?λεγεν) according to ?, A, C, K, L, Δ, Θ, Π, ?1 manuscripts, etc.; In manuscripts B, W, etc., “King Herod heard it, and they said,” (…κα? ?λεγον). Given the value and number of copies, the former should be taken. The former represents what King Herod Antipas said, the latter the general opinion.
Herod Antipas' judgment of Jesus, reflecting some public opinion, can be found in the statement that John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and therefore these powers work in him.
This is Herod Antipas's superstitious and guilty judgment of conscience. Herod Antipas imprisoned John the Baptist (Matthew 14:3, Luke 3:20) and eventually put him to death (6:17-29, Matthew 14:4ff., Luke 9:9). As a result, he was unable to control his thoughts internally. His thoughts were always bound to be trampled upon by the decrees of sin. Outwardly, he had no choice but to live in fear that sin would be discovered and that one day the consequences of sin would take hold of him. In a word, "Herod's superstition and guilty conscience created a ghost to haunt him" (E. P. Gould).
If he had known that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist (3:13-17) or that John the Baptist performed wonders and miracles that John the Baptist could not perform, he would not have mistaken Jesus for the reincarnation of John the Baptist. will be.
In any case, it was the element of power in Jesus' mission that led him to believe that John the Baptist had risen from the dead. “But it is not clear whether it is believed that John the Baptist performed miracles by resurrecting, or whether Jesus performed miracles, reminding him of John, who performed miracles in his lifetime” (J. Gnil-). ka, p. 316).
Regarding people's judgment of Jesus at that time, Mark [15] said, "Some say that this is Elijah, and some say that this is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old."
The public opinion that Jesus is Elijah is connected with Malachi 4:5, “Behold, I will send Elijah the prophet to you before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.” The return of Elijah is also recorded in Ecclesiasticus 48:10 et seq.
As W. Barclay writes, “Such a theory stems from the judgment of those who seek to find the realization of their ambitions in Jesus. They see Jesus as something to be exploited, not something to submit to and obey. Such people care more about their own ambitions than the will of God.” The public opinion that Jesus was like one of the prophets of old was lower than the public opinion that it was Elijah who came again.
As can be seen from the above facts, in general, people at that time did not understand Jesus as the Messiah.
[16] And Mark once more heard Herod saying, "John, whom I had beheaded, is alive."
This passage is not a mere repetition of verse 14, but a repetition of the explanatory group. Herod's words reveal that he has lived his life with a sense of guilt and remorse, and at the same time fearing retribution for his sins. Unfortunately, however, he did not know how to repent.
footnote-------------------------------
1) R. Bultmann, op. cit., p. 383.
2) “CB. p. 184” (in A. E. Sanner)