Chapter 349 of 404

25 See Webb, Baptizer, 87-88, helpfully.

22 E.g., Heb 11:38; Rev 12:6; Ps. Sol. 17:17; Song Rab. 2:13, §4; Tac. Ann. 14.23.

23 To avoid digressing lengthily here, I refer the interested reader to my more extensive discussion of the nature of John’s baptism in Keener, Matthew, 120-22; idem, John, 442-47.

24 Webb, Baptizer, 377-78, noting that John’s movement was more passive, and his followers consequently were spared, in contrast to some other movements of the time.

26 Commentators often note the wordplay (e.g., Manson, Sayings, 40; Argyle, Matthew, 36; Fenton, Matthew, 56; Gundry, Matthew, 47; Hagner, Matthew, 50). Prophets had often used witty wordplays (Amos 8:1-2; Micah 1:10-15; Jer 1:11-12), and Scripture already used stones to symbolize God’s people (Ex 24:4; 28:9-12; Josh 4:20-21; 1 Kgs 18:31; cf. also Evans, “Typologies,” 60) or covenants (Gen 31:46; Josh 4:20-24). Bringing stones to life may have been an image for the impossible (Neh 4:2; MT 3:34). For how the language would sound to both Greek and Jewish hearers, see also Keener, “Human Stones.”

27 E.g., Is 1:10; Jer 23:14; Ezek 16:46-56; Amos 2:4-3:2; 9:7.

28 At the very time salvation comes for some (Israel), judgment (often fiery hell) comes for others (e.g., 1 En. 96:1-3; Sipre Deut. 307.3.2; 324.1.5; Ex. Rab. 30:24; cf. Sib. Or. 4.42).

29 Not all of John’s imagery was uniquely Palestinian, of course; for example, everyone knew of the threshing floor (Pliny N.H. 18.54.195), and I have argued that the viper imagery he employs (Matt 3:7//Lk 3:7) was widespread (see e.g., Keener, “Brood of Vipers”; not cited there, cf. Modestinus Dig. 48.9.9).

30 E.g., Ps 1:4; Is 17:5-6, 13; 29:5-6; 33:11; 41:15-16; Jer 15:7; Hos 13:3; Joel 3:13; Zeph 2:2; cf. Ex 15:7; Jer 4:11-13; 13:24; Amos 8:1-2.

31 4 Ezra 4:30-32; fire in Jub. 36:10; cf. further fire in 1QM 14.1; Test. Ab. 12:4-14A; Sib. Or. 3.760- 61; 5.274; Num. Rab. 4:1; cf. Sipre Deut. 312.1.1; 343.5.2; Jms 5:7-8; Rev 14:15.

32 1 En. 48:9.

33 Ex 15:7; Ps 1:4; 35:5; 83:13; Is 17:13; 29:5; Dan 2:35; Hos 13:3; Mal 4:1; Sipre Deut. 312.1.1; 343.5.2; cf. earlier Canaanite poetry (in IAB 2, ANET 140). People used chaff for various purposes, of which the most prominent was fuel (CPJ 1:199; Gen. Rab. 83:5; cf. Hepper, Plants, 41; cf. straw in Pesiq. Rab. 10:4; straw was otherwise worthless, Num. Rab. 18:17).

34 CD 2.4-6; 1 En. 103:8; Sib. Or. 4.43, 161, 176-78; 2 Thess 1:6-7; Ex. Rab. 15:27; cf. also the references in Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:310. For the conflation of water (“baptism”) and fire metaphors, see the many references in Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:316, who also cite texts linking fire and water in judgment (Ps 66:10-12; Is 30:27-28; 43:2; 66:15-16; Sib. Or. 3.689-92; Jos. Ant. 1.70) and as a river or flood of fire (e.g., Dan 7:10; 1QH 3.29-36; 1 En. 67.13; Sib. Or. 2.196-205, 252-54; 3.54, 84-87; 4 Ezra 13:10-11).

35 E.g., villagers carried grain to village threshing floors, though large estates worked by tenants would have their own (Lewis, Life, 123). Archaeologists have recovered winnowing shovels, and the procedure is well-known (see Hepper, Plants, 90-91).

36 Kraeling, John the Baptist, 42; Ladd, Theology, 37; cf. Is 29:5-6; 33:11.

37 E.g., ARN 41 A; cf. also 36 A.

38 4 Macc 9:9; 12:12; tos. Sanh. 13:5; probably 1 En. 108:5-6; L.A.B. 38:4; Asc. Isa. 1:2; 3 En. 44:3; tos. Ber. 5:31; b. R.H. 17a; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Sanh. 6:6, §2; cf. Diod. Sic. 4.69.5; Plut. Divine Vengeance 31, Mor. 567DE. Although Luke does not reject future eschatology in his effort to contextualize for Greek readers (Acts 17:31-32; 23:6; 24:15; contrast e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.14, 18; War 2.163; Philo Sacr. Abel & Cain 5, 8), Matthew’s emphases retain more of their original Jewish flavor here (cf. Milikowski, “Gehenna”; Goulder, Midrash, 63).

39 Cf. 1QS 4.13-14; Gen. Rab. 6:6; most sinners in tos. Sanh. 13:3, 4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10:4; Pesiq. Rab. 11:5; cf. 2 Macc 12:43-45.

40 Num. Rab. 18:20; other texts are unclear, e.g., Sipre Num. 40.1.9; Sipre Deut. 311.3.1; 357.6.7; ARN 16 A; 32, §69 B; 37, §95 B. Twelve months is a familiar duration (b. Shab. 33b; Lam. Rab. 1:11-12, §40).

41 Greek mythology spoke of Tartarus for the worst offenders (a parallel used by some Diaspora Jews, Sib. Or. 1.10, 101-3; 2.291, 302; 4.186; 5.178; L.A.B. 60:3, most MSS; Test. Sol. 6:3), but the Semitic term “Gehinnom” predominates in Palestine and other Aramaic sources (among many other examples, e.g., 3 En. 44:3; m. Ab. 1:5; Sipre Deut. 333.5.2; ARN 25A; 41A; Pes. Rab Kah. 5:2; 9:1; Sup. 2:2; 3:2; b. Ber. 28b; Shab. 104a; Erub. 19a; Yoma 87a; Gen. Rab. 9:9; 20:1; Tg. Job on 2:11; Tg. Is. on 53:9; 66:24; Tg. Hosea on 14:10), and is rare (though occasionally borrowed, Sib. Or. 4.186) in Greco-Jewish ones.

42 On John proclaiming the expected one, see Webb, Baptizer, 261-306.

43 The Gospels do not claim that he offered that association publicly.

44 Bruce, “Matthew,” 84; Flowers, “En Pneumati”; cf. Dunn, “Spirit,” 695; Keener, “Spirit,” 491; Is 4:4. This interpretation does not preclude John from envisioning such a “purifying wind” as also God’s Spirit; the expression “holy Spirit” was a familiar one, and John’s contemporaries in the wilderness associated the Spirit with purification (see e.g., Keener, “Pneumatology,” 65-69). We have already noted that the tradition of John’s preaching included Semitic wordplays.

45 In John’s image, the judge burns chaff already separated from the wheat; thus Webb, Baptizer, suggests that John saw his ministry as already having separated the two.

46 Cf. e.g., Diog. Laert. Lives 6.2.44; b. B.B. 53b. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:315 cite also b. Kid. 22b, bar.; Pes. 4a; Sipre on Num. 15:41; Plaut. Trin. 2.1; Lachs, Commentary, 45 adds Mek. Ex. 21:2; b. B.M. 41a; Erub. 27b; Ket. 96a; p. B.M. 7:9, plus Roman custom.

47 E.g., Ex 24:13; 33:11; Deut 1:38; 2 Kgs 2:2-6; 3:11; 4:12, 43; 5:20; 6:3, 15, 17; 8:4; tos. B.M. 2:30; ARN 25A; b. Ber. 7b; Gen. Rab. 22:2; 100:10; cf. Diog. Laert. 7.1.12; 7.5.170.

48 B. Ket. 96a, cited in Davies, Sermon, 135; cf. Daube, NT and Judaism, 266. “Loosening” (Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16) and “carrying” (Matt 3:11) the sandals convey the same sense of servility, hence communicate the same point despite the variation in wording (cf. data in Daube, NT and Judaism, 266; they might also reflect the same Aramaic verb — cf. Manson, Sayings, 40).

49 For the prophets in general, see e.g., 2 Kgs 9:7, 36; 10:10; 14:25; 17:13, 23; 21:10; 24:2; Ezra 9:11; Is 20:3; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4; Dan 3:28; 6:20; 9:6, 10; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6; cf. ARN 37, §95 B; for David, see 2 Sam 3:18; 7:5, 8, 19-21, 25-29; 1 Kgs 3:6; 8:24-26, 66; 11:13, 32, 34, 36, 38; 14:8; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6; 1 Chron 17:4, 7, 17-19, 23-27; 2 Chron 6:15-21, 42; Ps 78:70; 89:3, 20; 132:10; 144:10; Is 37:35; Jer 33:21-22, 26; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25; cf. ARN 43, §121 B; for Moses, see Ex 14:31; Num 12:7-8; Deut 34:5; Josh 1:1-2, 7, 13, 15; 8:31, 33; 9:24; 11:12, 15; 12:6; 13:8; 14:7; 18:7; 22:2, 4-5; 1 Kgs 8:53, 56; 2 Kgs 18:12; 21:8; 1 Chron 6:49; 2 Chron 1:3; 24:6, 9; Neh 1:7-8; 9:14; 10:29; Ps 105:26; Dan 9:11; Mal 4:4; cf. L.A.B. 30:2; ARN 43, §121 B. Cf. also the patriarchs (Gen 26:24; Ex 32:13; Deut 9:27; Ps 105:6; 2 Macc. 1:2; Jub. 31:25; 45:3; Test. Ab. 9:4 A; 2 Bar. 4:4; ARN 43, §121 B) and Israel as a whole (Lev 25:42, 55; Deut 32:43; Is 41:8- 9; 42:1, 19; 43:10; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; Jer 30:10; 46:27-28; Ezek 28:25; 37:25; 2 Bar. 44:4; tos. B.K. 7:5; ARN 43, §121 B; Gen. Rab. 96 NV; p. Kid. 1:2, §24; cf. Tob 4:14 MSS). Slaves of rulers exercised high status; see e.g., Epict. Disc. 1.19.19; 4.7.23; Sherk, Empire, 89-90; Deissmann, Light, 325ff passim.

50 E.g., Anderson, Mark, 72-73; Taylor, Mark, 157.

51 Webb, “Relationship,” 201. For fuller discussion, see our chapter on “beyond Messiah”; also Wright, People of God, 248-59; Hayman, “Monotheism”; Bock, Blasphemy, 112-83.

52 Some scholars see a contradiction here (e.g., Kraeling, John the Baptist, 130; Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 159), but certainly the early compiler(s) of “Q” did not see any conflict.

53 Many of those Jesus touched and healed in these narratives were ceremonially unclean, limiting normal physical contact with them (cf. some limitations imposed by even blemishes; Lev 21:23; m. Bek. 7; CD 5.6-7; 15.15-16; 1QM 7). Some therefore suspect that John objected to Jesus’ violation of ritual purity regulations (cf. Johnson, Function, 133). In view of the narratives themselves, however, most scholars who accept both accounts regarding John believe that it was the discrepancy between John’s promise of fire-baptism and Jesus’ ministry of “mere” healings that disturbed him (Dibelius, Jesus, 77; Ladd, Theology, 42; Bruce, Time, 20; Gundry, Matthew, 206; Witherington, Christology, 43; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:244; Hagner, Matthew, 300; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:132).

54 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:135.

55 Witherington, Christology, 42-43, 165; Sanders, Figure, 94; Wink, “Reply.” See Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:832-37 for a thorough and convincing case that the raising of the dead claim goes back to Jesus (for the authenticity of the section, see also pp. 130-37).

56 Goppelt, Judaism, 77; Jeremias, Parables, 116; Borg, Vision, 165. Because these verses are likely authentic, Sanders thinks the historical Jesus probably did see his miracles in terms of Isaiah 35, hence either that he was fulfilling the prophets’ hopes or that their eschatological promises would soon be fulfilled (Sanders, Figure, 168; cf. also Witherington, Christology, 44).

57 Thus e.g., Stanton, Gospel Truth, 186-87 (citing 4Q521; 11QMelch 18). I believe that the language of 4Q521 is not messianic but divine (cf. discussion also in Kvalbein, “Wunder”; idem, “Wonders”).

58 Several scholars argue that 4Q521 may blend imagery from Is 35 with Is 61 and other precedent, perhaps Elijah’s miracles (for discussion, see Wise and Tabor, “Messiah at Qumran”; Tabor, “4Q521”; Collins, “Works”; adding possibly Is 53:5, see Evans, “Apocalypse,” esp. p. 696). Many scholars likewise find an echo of Is 61:1 alongside Is 35:5-6 in Jesus’ saying here.

59 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:244.

60 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:130 accepts the sayings, but noting the divergent wording of the narrative, suspects that the wording for the setting may be secondary. Nevertheless, Matthew and Luke agree on the basic content of the narrative structure, as Meier concurs, so either oral tradition or a written narrative must provide the framework for these otherwise isolated sayings. Jesus worded his sayings for memorization and transmission, but his followers felt more freedom to retell narratives in their own words (see our chapter on oral tradition). The narrative structure also makes historical sense (see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:244).

61 Fitzmyer thinks “coming one” alludes to Mal 3:1-4 (cf. Lk 3:15-17); Witherington thinks if this suggestion is correct then Jesus replaces that model with a more Isaianic one, but also stresses one of Fitzmyer’s other suggestions, a background in Zech 9:9 LXX and Qumran texts (1QS 9.11; 4QPBless 3; Witherington, Christology, 43). Flusser, Sage, 26, thinks that “coming one” refers to Dan 7:13; although this fits Jesus’ use of “Son of man,” “coming” is not an uncommon designation. What may be most significant for our purposes is that the title appears characteristic to John in the tradition (Matt 3:11//Lk 3:16//Jn 1:15, 27; Matt 11:3//Lk 7:19-20; though cf. Matt 11:14; Jn 11:27; Heb 10:37; perhaps 2 Jn 7).

62 Although Herod Antipas was only a tetrarch, he would have been the first royal personage to come to most of Jesus’ Galilean hearers’ minds (Theissen, Gospels in Context, 36). Similarly his palace, consisting of multiple buildings, could be described as “houses” (Jos. Life 66; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 36); or perhaps Jesus alludes to the fact that Antipas had another fortress palace at Machaerus, where John was imprisoned (Jos. Ant. 18.119; cf. Mk 6:17; France, Matthew, 194).

63 This need not mean that Antipas was a primary target of Jesus’ hostility (cf. Jensen, “Antipas”).

64 People who proved too weak for the test that awaited them were compared with the weakness of tall papyrus reeds, easily moved simply by the wind (1 Kgs 14:15; 2 Kgs 18:21; 3 Macc 2:22; cf. Is 42:3; Ps. Sol. 8:5; Matt 12:20; Babrius 36; a later example in Manson, Sayings, 68). For a survey of other interpretations (including Aesop’s fable, Reed, later recurring in rabbinic texts; cf. Flusser, Sage, 30), see Theissen, Gospels in Context, 27. Some scholars’ interpretations presuppose that Jesus here depicts John as a reed, but the text indicates Jesus depicts a reed as what John was not.

65 Cf. e.g., Gundry, Matthew, 207; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 26.

66 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 28-41.

67 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 33-34; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 101.

68 Cf. Theissen, Gospels in Context, 39-41.

69 At the least this made Jesus the Messiah (Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 130).

70 Cf. Edgar, “Messianic Interpretation,” 48; Manson, Sayings, 69; Mal 4:5-6. The formula quotation resembles those in Qumran (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:249 cite CD 1.13; 19.16; 16.15; 4QFlor 1.16; 4QCatena a 1-4.7; 5-6.11; 1QpHab 3.2, 13-14; 11QMelch. 2.15), which might suggest transmission in a source sympathetic toward the Baptist before “Q,” or may have echoed the language of wilderness sectarians appropriate to speaking of John. But it is not unfamiliar elsewhere in gospel tradition.

71 Hill, Prophecy, 46; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 167-68.

72 This is a central argument for Crossan, Historical Jesus, 237-38, who thereby seeks to oppose Jesus to John’s apocalyptic message.

73 Mark, omitting this passage from “Q,” apparently relocates the quotation to Mk 1:2. If Matthew reflects “Q” material, Jesus called John “Elijah” here (Matt 11:14), but Matthew probably draws on Mk 9:13 (which he makes more explicit in Matt 17:12-13).

74 “To what shall I compare” (Matt 11:16//Lk 7:31) is traditional language among Jewish sages (e.g., Sipre Num. 93.1.3; Sipre Deut. 357.18.2), as may be comments about a wicked eschatological generation (e.g., m. Sot. 9:15; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9).

75 Extolling one by contrast with another could demean the other, or it could simply be a way of praising the former by way of the latter’s greatness. For the latter option, see Dion. Hal. Demosth. 33; Fronto Ad Ant. Imp. 1.2.4; Men. Rhet. 1.2, 353.9-10; 2.1-2, 376.31-377.2; 2.3, 378.18-26; 2.3, 380.21-22, 30- 31; 2.6, 402.26-29; 2.6, 403.26-32; 2.6, 404.5-8 (402-4 involve praise of bride and groom); 2.10, 417.5-17; Hermog. Progymn. 8. On Syncrisis 19-20; Aphth. Progymn. 10. On Syncrisis, 43-44S, 32-33R, pp. 114- 15; Philostratus Hrk. 27.4; 37.2; 38.1; more fully, Keener, John, 916-17, 966-69, 1183-84; Anderson, Glossary, 121.

76 ARN 28, §57B. The editor of Kings included superlative (and technically incompatible) praise of two different kings (2 Kgs 18:5; 23:25); the editor of Joshua likewise probably spoke hyperbolically in affirming that God had never listened to such a human entreaty before (Josh 10:14; cf. Ex 8:13; 2 Kgs 6:18).

77 Kraeling, John the Baptist, 139.

78 It might also be relevant that “least in the kingdom” is, in another sense, not an insult; the least is the greatest in the kingdom because God evaluates disciples according to their faithfulness in deferring all honor to him (Matt 18:1-4; 20:26-27; Mk 10:43-44; Lk 9:48). But that is probably not the point here (cf. Matt 5:19).

79 B. Ber. 34b; Sanh. 99a; Shab. 63a; earlier attested in Acts 3:24; cf. Tg. Jon. on 2 Sam 23:1, 3; Tg. Jon. on 1 Kgs 5:13.

80 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 260.

81 That is, even where their ministries differ, Jesus affirms John’s ministry (Spencer, Profiles, 54- 58).

82 Kraeling, John the Baptist, 11-12; cf. Aune, Prophecy, 135; idem, Environment, 56.

83 Cf. Jeremias, Parables, 160. Nevertheless, later rabbis severely curtailed the applicability of the text and limited it to minors in a certain age range (cf. m. Sanh. 8:1-2; b. Sanh. 72a, bar.). I treat the context of this passage more fully in Keener, Matthew, 340-43; I omit the rest of that discussion to keep my treatment here brief.

84 Jos. Ant. 18.116-19. Josephus, whose narrative involves many Herodians, usually calls this one Antipas, yet sometimes, like Mark, calls him “Herod” (Jos. Ant. 18.104-6, 117, 243-255).

85 See Jos. Ant. 18.240-55. Josephus, unlike Mark, notes that Antipas’s divorce was Herodias’s idea, which Theissen admits fits hellenistic custom (Theissen, Gospels in Context, 84); that Josephus clearly dislikes strong women is no reason to dispute his report that Herodias, sister of the powerful Agrippa I, was one. Herodias’ divorce of her husband (Jos. Ant. 18.136) fits Greek custom but also royal behavior more generally (e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.361).

86 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:171-76; cf. also Taylor, Immerser, 246-47.

87 E.g., Herod Philip’s name — Theissen, Gospels in Context, 87; but cf. Hoehner, Antipas, 155- 56.

88 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 81-97. In any event, the narrative as a whole seems to derive from a pre-Markan source (see Manson, Servant-Messiah, 40; Lane, Mark, 215).

89 See Hoehner, Antipas, 303-6. Given the sheer numbers of early Christian converts, some contacts with the Herodian court are not unlikely (cf. Lk 8:3; Acts 13:1). Although most Palestinian Christians seem to have been from the ranks of the relatively poor (Rom 15:26), there is no reason to doubt that there were some exceptions (cf. Lk 8:3; Acts 6:7; 13:1; Jn 18:16; perhaps Mk 15:41, 43).

90 Mark’s title “king” (Mk 6:14) may be given loosely (cf. Jos. War 1.208-11; Sanders, Judaism, 542 n. 69), and could be understandable in a Galilean context (cf. comments in Theissen, Gospels in Context, 36), but perhaps is intended ironically, in view of what that solicited title later cost Antipas (Jos. Ant. 18.240-54).

91 Kraeling, John the Baptist, 89.

92 The Gospels call him “Philip,” Josephus by the more general title “Herod”; but Herod the Great sometimes gave various sons the same name (if they had different mothers), and elsewhere showed a liking for the name “Philip.” Herod Philip was son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II (Hoehner, Antipas, 133-36; pace Anderson, Mark, 168).

93 Jos. Ant. 18.136; cf. Ant. 17.341.

94 Jos. Ant. 18.38; Horsley, Galilee, 65.

95 Cf. Jos. Ant. 18.118; Kraeling, John the Baptist, 85, 90-91, 143-45; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 174; Hengel, Leader, 36.

96 Jos. Ant. 18.113-14, 124-25. Popular sentiments that the loss reflected divine judgment on Antipas for John’s execution fit the sort of popular expectations of judgment attested elsewhere as well (e.g., Tac. Ann. 13.17). A father’s retribution for a son-in-law’s mistreatment of a daughter also fits cultural expectations (Alciphron Fishermen 6 [Panopê to Euthybolus], 1.6).

97 See Pliny N.H. 5.15.72; Wandrey, “Machaerus,” 92; Piccirillo, “Machaerus.”

98 See Glueck, Rivers, 192.

99 Cf. Kraeling, John the Baptist, 9-10, 92-93.

100 Mk 6:24; Manns, “Fouilles”; Riesner, “T?ufer.” Readers in the eastern Mediterranean would probably assume this arrangement (Corn. Nep. preface 6-7).

101 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 91-99 thinks this is a legendary motif cohering with other attempts to depict the Herodian women’s loose morals. His examples, however, may without much difficulty illustrate that such lewdness could and did happen at aristocratic banquets (cf. even usual Roman banquets in Dupont, Life, 285; cf. the twelve-year old boy in Boring et al., Commentary, 97), arguing against his own position. That Herodian women’s lives were probably “no more corrupt than those of other members of their class” (p. 96) may not be saying much (cf. Rawlinson in Hill, Matthew, 244; for evidence of Herodian women’s wealthy lifestyle, cf. e.g., Shoemaker, “Earring”).

102 Cf. Jos. Ant. 18.137; Hoehner, Antipas, 155-56; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 90-91; Kraeling, John the Baptist, 87. Philip died c. 33-34 (Jos. Ant. 18.106).

103 Cf. Lane, Mark, 221; Nineham, Mark, 175; Hoehner, Antipas, 157; Esth 1:11.

104 Anderson, Mark, 166.

105 Cf. stories in Livy 39.42.8-39.43.5; Val. Max. 2.9.3; Seneca Controv. 9.2 (hypothetical); Appian C.W. 4.4.20; Plutarch M. Cato 17.2-3 (while drunk); Tac. Ann. 14.57, 59, 64; Suet. Calig. 32.1; Dio Cass. R.H. 62.14.1; ordering deaths during a feast, Jos. Ant. 13.380 (cf. Sil. It. 11.51-54); bringing heads in Val. Max. 9.2.1; Seneca Controv. 10.3.1; 10.3.5; Seneca Suasoriae 6.20; Pliny Nat. Hist. 33.14.48; Quintus Curtius 7.4.40; Arrian Alex. 4.17.7; Tac. Hist. 2.16; Suet. Aug. 13.1; Plut. Caesar 48.2; Cicero 49.1; Sulla 32.2; Jos. Ant. 20.98. For displaying heads after executions, see Polyb. 11.18.6; Cic. Phil. 11.2.5; Sall. Jug. 12.5; Val. Max. 9.9.1; Sil. It. 2.202-5; 15.813-14; Appian C.W. 1.8.71-72; 2.12.86; Tac. Hist. 1.49; 2.49; 3.62; Suet. Galba 20.2; Herodian 3.7.7; 5.4.4; 8.5.9; 8.6.7; 2 Kgs 10:6-7.

106 Jos. Ant. 18.240-44. Such behavior was known to enrage other rulers as well (Plut. Themistocles 29.5).

107 Jos. Ant. 18.252-54; Kraeling, John the Baptist, 86; Lane, Mark, 211.

108 As noted earlier in the book, Sanders doubts that repentance was as central to Jesus’ teaching as John’s (Sanders, Figure, 231-32; cf. idem, Jesus and Judaism, 109), but the same appeal to word statistics could deny the centrality of love in his message despite the explicit claim in Mk 12:29-30. Although Jesus may have used the term less than John, examples of radical conversion show the centrality of the concept in his ministry (e.g., Mk 2:14-17), and Luke’s emphasis on the term does not negate the occasional use of “repentance” earlier in the tradition (Matt 11:20-21//Lk 10:13); and the idea that Jesus did not set out many “stipulations and conditions” for the Kingdom (Sanders, Figure, 234) needs serious nuancing (cf. e.g., Mk 10:17-25). John undoubtedly influenced Jesus (e.g., Michaels, Servant, 1- 24; see discussion above), and Sanders himself accepts that Jesus must have mostly agreed with the message of the prophet who baptized him (Figure, 94; see further Chilton, “Repentance”). Jesus clearly was not interested only in encouraging disciples; his message was for the whole people (Borg, Conflict, 70; contrast Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 112-13, but cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 118).

109 For substantial continuity between John and Jesus in their eschatological message, see e.g., Schweitzer, Quest, 240; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 91-94; Sanders, “Know,” 57; Ehrman, Prophet, 185.

110 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11; idem, Figure, 94; idem, “Know,” 57; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:100-5; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 164-66; Webb, “Relationship,” 214-18; pace Bultmann, Tradition, 251. Although Matthew and Luke could draw from Mark, this narrative is probably also in Q (Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:103), and Mark may well have drawn from it.

111 Theon Progymn. 5.52-56.

112 Taylor, Immerser, 321 (see also 294-99).

113 Cf. Stauffer, Jesus, 65. The lack of water in many places in Galilee could explain its absence in much of his itinerant ministry (cf. Kraeling, John the Baptist, 174), though not around the lake of Galilee.

↑ Back to top