Was Jesus involved in John the Baptist's murder?

[TheInvisibleDan]

quote:

Originally posted by WordWolf:

He was definitely beheaded for the witness of the word of God.

Did he bear witness of Jesus?

John 1 says he did.

A superb point, though I think the writer of the Fourth Gospel is stating such here from his "theological" standpoint; I was kicking about in my mind more the political circumstances or reasons that had provoked Herod to imprison John which, as we might gather from the Synoptics, had seemingly little to do with Jesus but more to do with a controversy concerning Herod's niece.

I've encountered the proposal on a couple occassions while reviewing commentaries on the Fourth Gospel, that one intent (among many) behind the writer penning this gospel was to draw and appeal to those still in the Baptist's movement, who had not surrendered their conviction of following John as their main figure. They had not automatically given up John to follow Jesus. Nor was everyone involved in John's movement apparently inclined to do so.

Just as today - some give up their involvement in one group to follow another movement; others don't, and remain in their group and its doctrine.

***

While "John" and others of the "OT prophecy fulfilment school" presented their Gospels through their theological standpoints, others holding contrary views likewise did the same in their presentations of Jesus' sayings.

This is no better illustrated than by Marcion's Gospel text. But in his gospel, rather than John the Baptist serving as a precursor to Jesus, he was depicted as a prophet of the "Old Testament" God who experienced great difficulty in understanding Jesus because in many respects, he did not fit the "messianic" profile.

Of the section in Luke 7 we touched on, Marcion's version read as follows, the first line of which (attested by Tertullian, Adamantius and Epiphanius) is not present (or omitted?) in our Lukan redaction:

"John [the Baptist] was scandalized!

["offended", "outraged"]

Upon hearing of his works while in prison,

he sent two of his disciples to inquire

"Are you the one who is expected? Or should we await another?"

Yet even without the line, "John was offended", this passage should give us cause to wonder:

why would John, upon specifically hearing the reports of Jesus' "works", have dispatched his disciples to inquire (or resolve any doubts concerning?) whether or not Jesus was "the one who is expected"?

Perhaps John needed a bit of encouragement while in prison, to calm some shakey knees amidst the intensity of the situation...yet, such a question seems to have been provoked upon hearing about "the works" of Jesus.

And speaking of "senseless" - what message does Jesus send back to John after doing further of the same kinds of "works" before John's disciples -

"Blessed is he if he is not offended (or, "scandalized") by me"

***

However, I think there was a specific "work" or miracle that Jesus performed that provoked John to question Jesus. One which troubled John so greatly, being something that would still raise a few eyebrows even today.

Danny

[WordWolf]

If everything you said is true, I think there's a much

simpler explanation for John's concern. You touched on it

yourself.

Incompatible "styles".

Jesus himself said that critics would chatter endlessly

regardless of the substance of matters.

He said that John came neither eating nor drinking, and

they criticized that.

He said he (Jesus) came eating and drinking, and they

criticized THAT.

To my thinking, John seemed to lean more towards aseticism

and abstinence from all sorts of things. He had a strict

diet and strict conduct. Jesus, on the other hand, related

to the people-he ate with publicans and sinners, tax collectors

and lawyers. Who was right? They BOTH were, for different

reasons. However, a pragmatist would favour Jesus' approach,

and a moralist would favour John's approach.

[Bob]

quote:

However, I think there was a specific "work" or miracle that Jesus performed that provoked John to question Jesus. One which troubled John so greatly, being something that would still raise a few eyebrows even today.

Ransacking the Temple would be one.

Of course, that's what got the attention of the Romans, although John may have paid attention. Which Gospel we working from? The Synoptics or John? John has the Temple ransacking at the beginning of his career, the Synoptics toward the end -- so it makes a difference.

I can see one purpose of the book of John being to sway the remaining Baptists (certainly not the only one though). From what I understand, John's base of operations was Alexandria, which is suspiciously mentioned only once in the N.T. even though it is one of the greatest cities at the time, possibly second only to Rome. (Apollos coming from there, "knowing only the baptism of John"). It could have been a stronghold of Baptists for quite awhile.

[TheInvisibleDan]

quote:

Originally posted by WordWolf:

To my thinking, John seemed to lean more towards aseticism and abstinence from all sorts of things. He had a strict

diet and strict conduct. Jesus, on the other hand, related

to the people-he ate with publicans and sinners, tax collectors and lawyers.

I think that assessment holds true, and very appropriate to bear in mind with the following proposal. As I concluded in my last post, I think there was a particular "work" of Jesus that may have pushed and tried the limits of John's "moralist" sensibilities, which resulted in him becoming "scandalized" or offended (Luke/Marcion 7:21f.).

The "work" or incident that I actually had in mind (according to reconstructions of the hypothetical "Q" source-document, which I think may have been arranged in Marcion's text as well) was in the section immediately preceding the material concerning John in Luke 7:21f, namely that of Jesus' healing of the Roman centurion's young "servant" (Luke 7:2ff).

I'm not certain how John the Baptist would have felt about the "messiah" helping out an occupying enemy; perhaps that alone would have sufficed toward pushing his buttons, especially while he was prison.

But then, by my own suspicion in reviewing the text with subsequent confirmation by others, I stumbled across the possibility that this may have been no mere "servant" who cooked and cleaned and dusted for the centurion; here we have a young "slave" who "was dear" (or "loved") by the centurion - in short, might we specifically be concerned here with a "sex-slave"?

If so, not only had Jesus helped an enemy soldier - but did so by healing this soldier's "love-slave". And a young one at that (perhaps even a mere teenager).

I can imagine, John the Baptist being a moralist, that he would have found this vastly unsettling (esp. when considering that John was imprisoned for lashing out concerning Herod's questionable marital arrangements having to do with his niece). A supposed "messiah" helping an enemy Roman soldier and his boy sex-slave could have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

Danny

[def59]

Bob and Dan

Have you ever read Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" he cites his sources for how we can trust the Gospels for being historically accurate.

Strobel was an atheist who decided to see if the claims of the Bible were true. He was the legal editor for the Chicago Sun-Times (or Tribune) and well-acclaimed.

If the truth is what you say you want, it would be good to see all sides.

[Ham]

quote:

However, I think there was a specific "work" or miracle that Jesus performed that provoked John to question Jesus. One which troubled John so greatly, being something that would still raise a few eyebrows even today.

Pouring out wine like water might be another. "Let the Party begin!"

[Ham]

That WAS the first "sign" in the gospel of John, after all..

[def59]

Here's a good site.

http://www.christianity.co.nz/

[TheInvisibleDan]

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Hammeroni:

Pouring out wine like water might be another. "Let the Party begin!"

lol! partying biblical characters gone wild.