Proper 10, Year B
2
Samuel 6:1-5, 12b-19 or Amos 7:7-15; Psalm 24; Ephesians 1:3-14; Mark 6:14-29
Mark 6:14-29
Good morning (or whenever you do your sermon prep),
What follows here today are some way-too-extensive notes
on Mark 6:14-29. They will give you far more information than you ever thought you
needed about the genealogical, economic, social and political background of
this famous story. To make it even worse, at the end I've
included several pages of fairly dense translation notes. It will be tough, plowing through it all, but give it a shot, it'll do you good.
However, to make
amends, click here to go to a fairly nice sermon that I preached on this text a
few years ago that utilize a lot of the material below, but in a more user
friendly, “preacherly” way. Enjoy.
As usual, if anyone would like updates on this or
any of my other blogs, click here and we’ll set you up.
Stan
Background thoughts and notes:
1. Note that Mark is the
shortest of the four Gospels, but it has the longest version of this story.
Matt and Luke have it, but in a much briefer form: Matt. 14:1-12; Luke 3:19-20,
9:7-9. It might be an interesting question to ponder why in Mark’s eyes, the
story looms so large. Is it because persecutions and assassinations of religious
leaders had become a prominent fear in Mark’s time?
2. Also interesting that this
is the only place in Mark’s Gospel where Jesus is not the center of the story.
Actually in a subtle way, he may be, because there is a suspicion among many
New Testament scholars that Mark is drawing parallels between the crucifixion
of John and the Crucifixion of Jesus.
3. Mark “sandwiches” this story
in between two others, the sending out of the 12 missionaries (vv. 7-13) and
the receiving them back in celebration (v. 30). This was a characteristic of
the Lectionary reading two weeks ago about the woman with twelve years of a
flow of blood and the young girl twelve years old. And it is a frequent motif
of Mark (1:21-28; 3:21-35; 5:21-43). Mark uses the ends of the sandwich as a
tool to color and interpret what goes on in between. The outsides give Mark’s “take”
on what is happening on the insides. If that’s true, then the question is, what
is Mark trying to tell us about John’s beheading as focused and interpreted by
the sending and receiving of the missionaries?
a. One likely possibility is to
contrast the two lives of Jesus and John, both who came to a nasty end after
proclaiming something about the Kingdom.
b. A second possibility (and
the one highlighted in my sermon on this passage) is to highlight a contrast
between John’s preaching mission (which ended badly) and that of the disciples
(which ended well). I think Mark is saying that sometimes the mission goes well
and sometimes it goes badly. That’s the way life is. Sometimes you proclaim the
Gospel and lives are changed, and sometimes you do it and you get your head
handed to you on a platter.
That
could explain why Mark puts the story here, which is actually years out of
place chronologically.
Stoffregen
notes that “Jesus warned them (the disciples who were being sent out) that some
may not welcome them nor hear them. The good news does not overwhelm everyone—in
fact, it can offend some.”[w]
(Been there, done that.)
The
“Sandwich” begins in v. 7, when Jesus sends out the twelve; and it ends in v. 30
when they return. It’s a story of a preaching mission that went very well
sandwiched around the story of John the Baptist, a preaching mission that didn’t.
Juel
(Mark, Augsburg Commentary) writes:
The
return to John at a time when Jesus seems to be enjoying success and popularity
introduces a sobering note into the story again. It serves as a reminder of
what happens to preachers who threaten established authorities. The confusion
between Jesus and John insinuates that a similar fate awaits Jesus. [p. 95][x]
Williamson
(Mark, Interpretation Commentaries)
concludes his comments on this section with:
One
way to read the passage, then, is in terms of success versus significance.
Success, as the world measures it, seen in the court of Herod. There we find
the chief of state and his advisers, the military commanders, the leading
people of the country; they are the ones who can afford leisure and pleasure;
they can get what they want when they want it. John the Baptist, alone in his
cell, doomed and helpless to save his life, appears in shocking contrast to the
glitter of the successful people of his time. Our minds are perpetually and
perversely fascinated by the wealth, power, and intrigue of Herod's court; yet
the significance of the text lies in the death of that starkly simple prophet
in Herod's prison. The Gospel here invites us to look closely at success ...
and then choose significance as we follow Jesus on his way. [p. 124]
V. 14: Herod
the “King”
He was not really a king. He
was a tetrarch (see the genealogy
section), but he always wanted to be a king, and it’s possible that Mark was
being ironic calling him that. According to David Fiensy, “when his wife, Herodias's
own brother Agrippa was later made ruler over adjoining territories and was
given the title “king,” she was filled with envy and pushed Antipas, against
his will, into going to Rome to pursue the same title.”[y]
And R.T. France adds, “[Caesar] Augustus specifically refused to grant Antipas
this title enjoyed by his father, so he remained tetrarch until he was deposed
in a.d. 39…it was his active campaigning for that title which led to his
eventual dismissal and exile.”[z]
In v. 14, Herod hears for the first time that Jesus
has sent out the twelve on a preaching mission and ponders who Jesus might
really be. According to the conversations around him, some thought he might be
either John, or Elijah, or some other prophet. But then Herod weighs in saying
he figured that Jesus was a resurrection of John, whom he had had beheaded.
This is an odd and somewhat backhanded introduction
to the story, because it turns all of the beheading story into backstory—something
that had taken place months, if not years earlier—into an explanation for why
Herod thought Jesus was John. It fits together oddly, but there it is.
The various theories they list of who Jesus might be
probably reflect a number of the various views on him that were swirling
around. One of them most certainly was that John was resurrected in the body of
Jesus. It sounds odd to us today, but was likely prominent at the time. Herod
believed it; the “street” believed it. And one goal of Mark in retelling this
story was to refute it. Robert Price asks, “It is remarkable enough to know
that some believed John had been resurrected; but what are the implications of
an early belief that John rose from the dead and then became known as Jesus?”[aa]
v. 16, Here’s a subtle but important point: when
Herod says he thinks that Jesus is John raised from the dead, among other
things, it shows that Herod now believes Jesus is his enemy. It’s interesting
to add to this the fact that every time Herod or the Herodians are mentioned in
Mark, they all “imply some kind of hostility to and threat to the work of God.[bb]
See Mark 3:6; 6:14-29; 8:15, and 12:13.
V. 17 ff. Herod
was frightened of John and had him arrested.
We know that Herod was frightened of John because he
was beloved by the masses and if they followed him they might want to overthrow
Herod. Josephus says that Herod assassinated John solely because he was a
political threat to Herod. What was it about John’s preaching that made Herod
see him as a danger politically?
Here
are a few things in John’s teaching that could have precipitated the arrest.
·
First, when John attacked Herod for marrying Herodias, the public shame
of such an act probably was damaging to Herod’s reputation.
·
Second, the act probably had political dimensions as well. Herod’s first
marriage was with the daughter of the King of Arabia. No great love story, but
a political marriage to keep peace between the two countries. But then scandalously,
he threw off his Arabian wife, and married Herodias and put the entire province
in danger. A question we need to answer here is, why did Herod do that?
Obviously it had to do with his inability to keep his brains out of his pants
when he met Herodias, but didn’t he have any
consideration of what the ramifications for peace in the territories might be?
(Silly question.)
“Tangled
kinship affairs (which Mark does not have altogether correct) provide the backdrop
for the story by accounting for the enmities being played out. That Herod fears
John is an indication of how far John has risen in the public assessment of
honor and is one of a number of indications of Herod’s weakness. Dancing, most
commonly done at weddings, is often quite erotic and usually done only for
extended kin. Here officers and leading men of Galilee are present. In
non-elite eyes, honorable males would not allow a female family member to
perform such a display; their failure to prevent her from doing so pegs them as
shameless. It is also shameful for any man to be bewitched by the proverbial
sensuality of a woman in public. Since the maximum a woman could receive was
only half of what a man was worth, Herod offered everything he could. The oath
made by Herod was made in front of guests. He was therefore honor bound to keep
his word. Had he not done so, his officers would no longer have trusted him.”[cc]
A Translation Problem
in v. 22.
While it is probably true that the young girl who
came in to dance for the drunken birthday party was Herod’s Wife’s daughter
from a previous marriage, the text itself does not make that clear. The girl is
unnamed and could be either Herod’s daughter, Herodias, or Herodias’ daughter,
Salome. Josephus the ancient historian, says that Herodias’ daughter was Salome.
The differences don’t have to do with interpretations
of the text, but with Greek variants in the text. Bratcher and Nida’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,
say that while the “weight of the external evidence” leans toward saying that
it is Herod’s daughter, the sense of
it is the opposite. Historically, it almost cannot be Herod’s daughter.[dd]
And besides, when she gets the promise of anything up to half of Herod’s
kingdom (a stupid promise, but he was drunk. You’ve never done something stupid
when you were drunk?), v.24 says she went out to talk it over with “her
mother.” Bruce Metzger says of translating this, that it “is very difficult to
decide which reading is the least unsatisfactory.”
You can see the two options here:
NIV: “When the daughter of Herodias came in…”
Which would make her Salome, according to other
sources, though her name is not used here. That she is Herodias’ daughter is
supported by v. 24, where she goes up to Herodias and the text calls her her mother.
NRSV “When his
daughter, Herodias, came in…”
Which
would make her, well, Herodias. This translation is better attested in the manuscripts,
but it contradicts v. 24. The other one is smoother and more clear. It fits
with v. 24, but has weaker attestation.
Ultimately the translation preferred by most
scholars today (I think) is the one that makes her Herodias’ daughter. But that
doesn’t get us around the fact that it’s a complicated and messy verse.
A little
genealogy
This Herod is the son of Herod the Great, who, under
the larger rule of Rome , was nominal “King” over
all of what was known as Judea . He had four
sons (by more than one wife), two of whom play roles in this story. He died at
about 4 b.c.e and Rome allowed his
kingdom to be divided up among the sons, each getting roughly a quarter of the
holdings, making each of them a “Tetrarch,” meaning a holder of a quarter. The
Herod in this story is Herod Antipas. He is called a “Tetrarch” by Matthew and
Luke but Mark calls him (incorrectly) a “King.” The IVP Commentary suggests that Mark may have chosen that title with a
touch of irony in his voice because in a.d.
39 he attempted to establish himself as king for life and was deposed by the
military and sent out of the country (or was that Egypt?).[ee]
His
quarter of his father’s land was Galilee and the region of Perea across the Jordan River and he was allowed to be governor on it for
more than forty years, from 4 b.c.e.
to 39 (when he had the unfortunate and unwise encounter with the military over
his repeated claim to be King). He not only executed John the Baptist (Matt
14:1; Luke 3:19), he was also the one who executed Jesus’ (Luke 13 & 23).
Another
son of King Herod was Philip, and he was tetrarch of the more remote northern
and eastern parts. His rule was from 4 CE to 34 CE. His wife (I’m not making
this up) was also named Herodias, and was Philip’s niece, King Herod’s granddaughter
Herod’s
first wife was from the daughter of Aretas, king of Petra. It was an arranged
marriage for diplomatic reasons, which usually ran something like, “I’ll take
your daughter, if you promise to not invade my country.” Or, in some instances
(like this one), “I’ll give you one hundred miles of good farmland out of my country, if you will give me your daughter.” (Personally, I’ve always
believed that if some king had to give up land in order to get a wife, he must
be just reeeeeeeal ugly, but that’s just my opinion.)
According
to Josephus, the scandal took place one day when Herod Antipas and Herodias
were on some kind of road trip to Rome (or perhaps Argentina). They kind of forgot
to reserve two rooms when they stopped for the night at the roadside Holiday Inns,
nd when she got home she divorced her husband Phillip and Herod divorced his
wife and then they got married. Politically, this was important because his
first wife’s daddy, Aretas, immediately declared war on Galilee and invaded.
Hotshot Herod, who always thought he was a king anyway, sent forces to the
border to fight back but was vastly outnumbered (Aretas, was, after all, a real king and a much bigger army) and
Herod’s forces got knocked on their pitooey. Which means, more seriously, that
his vanity and lack of sexual boundaries made him willing to risk and lose the
lives of hundreds of people so that he could have an affair and show off how
tough he was (or how tough he thought
he was). “Willingness to sacrifice
others to maintain honor, prestige, and power remains one of the great
temptations of persons in positions of authority.”[ff]
This
little affair is critical to today’s story because the infidelity and the
divorce follow-up was at least one of the issues that John the Baptist was
haranguing the governor about while he was in jail. According to Josephus, the
reason why he was put in jail in the first place was that Herod was worried
about the mass crowds John was gathering for his sermons and baptisms and
thought they were political. He may have been correct about that, though
history may have washed away some of John’s political rhetoric. But once he was
in prison, he evidently also was pestering Antipas about his loose definition
of marriage vows. This pissed off his wife, Herodias, and she wanted to kill
him outright. She was livid. How dare John claim there was something wrong and
immoral about their having an affair, throwing their spouses under the bus, and
putting the peace of the country at risk?
The
scandal according to Mark is actually not described in terms of the dumping of
his first wife (which was pretty slimy and precipitated the war with Petra),
but in terms of his taking his brother’s wife away from him. One could take
one’s wife if he had passed away, but Philip was alive and well, and that was
against the law (Lev. 18:16; 20:21). “Jewish law did not allow a woman to
divorce her husband, but Herodias apparently took advantage of her roman citizenship
to divorce her husband, but Herodias apparently took advantage of her Roman
citizenship to divorce her first husband under Roman law (a point which will be
relevant when we come to Jesus’ pronouncement in 10:12). The marriage was thus
doubly scandalous, and John could expect to have Jewish public opinion on his
side in denouncing it.”[gg]
She
couldn’t kill John herself, however, because Herod kind of liked the guy and
liked listening to his prison harangues, though Mark says he really didn’t
understand much of what John said (know the feeling, it happens to me all the
time).
Which comes back to the
reasons why Mark includes this story here.
·
One reason focusses on Herod: to show that some people can hear the
word of God and change and others remain in their evilness.
·
The other reason focusses on John, but is oddly similar: sometimes you
can preach the word of God and do God’s work and it goes well [as with the
twelve who Jesus sent out on the preaching mission] and sometimes you can do
the right thing and you get your head handed to you on a platter.
Stoffregen
offers the following as a possible sermon illustration of Herod:
There were two brothers in
Georgia during the 1950’s. One decided that in opposition to the dominant
culture of the day, he was going to support and participate in the formation of
a multi-ethnic community. The other worked as an attorney for a prominent law
firm. Both were Christians and attended church regularly. As the multi-ethnic
community formed and social pressure forced them into court proceedings, the
one brother asked his attorney brother to help them with the legal work. The
brother refused, saying that he could lose his job. The pressure increased to
help with a reminder that he was a Christian. The lawyer responded, “I will
follow Jesus to his cross, but it is his cross. I have no need to be
crucified.” To this his brother replied, “Then you are an admirer of Jesus, but
not his disciple.”
Vv. 21-28, A few Final Comments about the “Birthday” Party:
It’s worth noting that
birthdays were not celebrated in Israel. There were only three or four
birthdays even mentioned in the entire Bible. Herod, however, was culturally
more Roman than Hebrew, and in any case, there is no indication that this party
had much to do with birthdays. His guest
list was all political cronies. Here’s who he invited:
1. Tois megistasin, “chief nobles.” Civil officials, government officials.
2. Chiliarchos. Literally, a “Commanders of 1,000 men.” A roman title for the heads of
the state military apparatus. Bratcher and Nida say that “the word is used here
in the general sense of high ranking officers” (p. 197).
“The degenerate nature of Antipas’ splendid
banquet contrasts vividly with the wholesome simplicity of the very different
feast which will follow next in Mark’s narrative (6:39-43).[ii]
6:22 “When his (step) daughter came in and danced…”
There is some question about
how old the girl is. Guesses range from around twelve to twenty. The fact that
she has to ask her mother indicates to some that she must still be quite young.
However, “on any reading, Herod’s vulgarity is perverse; after taking his
brother’s wife (cf. Lev 20:21), he lusts after his wife’s daughter (cf. Lev
20:14).”[jj]
6:23 Half of my kingdom:
Herod’s pledge is not backed
up with any authority; as a Roman vassal he has no authority to give away any
of his kingdom. But then, he’s drunk and, remember, he thought he was a king.
6:24. The girl has to go
“out” to ask her mother. Some commentators see this as women partying in one
dining hall and the men in another. Other commentators say that Herodias and her
mother were waiting just outside for the menfolk to get so drunk that they
would inevitably promise the sexy young girl anything and then she could ask
for John’s head. Either is possible and neither mess with the gist of the
story.
For what it’s worth, Josephus
characterizes Herodias the same way that Mark does: a jealous, ambitious
schemer.
The exact location where
John is being held is not mentioned in the text, but it’s relevant to the story
because it would have to be close to the party or else they couldn’t have sent
guards to him for his head and bring it back while the party was going on
(unless it was a very, very ,very, very, long party). Josephus says that it was
in Herod’s fortified palace at Machaerus, in Peraea, which would make it pretty
far away. So, either John had been brought in for a while and was there during
the time of the party, or they had it at another location closer in. “Excavations
at Herod’s fortress Machaerus suggest two dining halls, one for women and one
for men.”[kk]
So, it is entirely possible that they were in fact at Machaerus and that the
women were in one dining hall and the men were in another, and John was in the
prison room.
[a] “Send” (ἀποστέλλω, apostellō)
to order someone to go to a
specific place for a specific purpose; to send someone on a mission to preach
(Mar_3:14; Luk_9:2); speak (Luk_1:19); bless. By contrast, see v. 17, Herod
sends men to arrest John, and 27, Herod sends men to kill John.
[b] This phrase is preceded by kai, “and.” It would have been very
helpful to put this in the translation, because it connects Herod’s thoughts on
Jesus and John, to the previous story. Leaving it out cuts it off from what has
just occurred.
[c] “Some” (elegon, ἔλεγον). Impersonal plural. Not, “they said”
but “some said.” The KJV has elegen,
which is similar, but has an “e” instead of an “o” and means, “he was saying,”
which is very likely incorrect. No modern translation follows the KJV in this.
Some, however, give it as an alternative reading.
[d] “The baptizer” Matthew and Luke use the
noun form (βαπτίστης, baptistēs), as a title, Mark prefers the participle (ὁ βαπτίζων, ho baptizōn), as in “the one who baptizes, or the baptizer,” as the
nrsv has here. Note v. 6:25, which
is one of only two instances in his Gospel of the word being used as a noun
(the other is Mark 8:28).
[e] “[Has been raised] from the dead” (ek nekrōn). More
like, “raised out of the dead.” Cf. Mark 9:9, 10, 12:25, 16:14.
[f] “These powers are at work in him” (ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ
δυνάμεις ἐν αὐτῷ, energousin hai
dunameis en autōi). Some interpreters suggest, “Mighty deeds are done by
him.”
[g] Expected in scripture to return to life on
earth were Elijah (Mal 4:5) and a prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15).
[h] The questions of Herod in 6:14-16 reflect
confusion in popular messianic expectations and anticipate similar questions in
8:27-30. Following “John, whom I beheaded,
has been raised,” the Texus receptus adds ek nekrōn, “from the dead.” But few modern
translations follow this.
[i] “Sent” (ἀπέστειλα, apesteilas). Verb, past participle, aorist, singular,
masq. Having sent. See above on
“send,” v. 7. Some have seen an intentional parallel from mark between Jesus
sending out the Twelve to do good and Herod sending out the guards to arrest
John and do evil.
[j] Gk he
(nrsv note).
[k] “Feared John” (ephobeito ton Iōanēn). Imperfect
tense, meaning that it is a continual
state of fear. Bratcher and Nida prefer “he held (John) in awe.” It fits the
context of the story better.
[l] “Holy man” (hagios). This is the only time in Mark’s
Gospel where a human is called “Holy.”
[m] “Protected him” (sunetērei) Imperfect tense, again,
meaning that he continued keeping John safe. France adds that the word
“indicates protection from Herodias rather than keeping in custody, though the
latter was also, of course, true” (p. 257).
[n] Other ancient authorities read he did many things, nrsv, note. The NET Bible notes, call the alternative reading here
“virtually nonsense,” and say it is an “unintentional corruption,” caused most
likely simply because “baffled” and “did” look alike in Greek. The word is ἠπόρει, ēporei,
“baffled,” “confused,” bewildered.” The majority of the manuscripts have the verb ποιέω, poieō, “I do,” which led
to the nrsv’s alternative (and the
kjv’s major) reading, “he did many
things.” But the better manuscripts
have ἀπορέω, aporeō, “I am at a loss,” which fits much better to the story and
leads to Herod’s being perplexed. NET notes, “The variation may be no more than
a simple case of confusion of letters, since the two readings look very much
alike.” The point, if this is the correct reading, is that John was saying
things that either Herod was not able to understand or (less likely) Herod
chose not to understand them. The Complete
Word Study Dictionary has, “Not knowing how to proceed, speak, or act.”
Thayer’s Greek Definitions has, “not
to know which way to turn.”
[o] “He liked to listen to him”
(hēdeōs ēkouen). Imperfect tense,
meaning that he continually enjoyed listening to John. Implication is that he
did it often, ongoing. This is the only time that this term shows up in Mark.
Mark has very few words like “gladly” or “liked” in it.
[p] “Opportunity came” (genomenēs hēmeras eukairou),
literally, “a day of opportunity,” “Lucky day,” “well timed.”
[q] That is, politicians, military, and the
wealthy. They included, “the lords (megas
great ones), the high captains (chiliarchos
commander of a thousand soldiers, a
Roman cohort), and chief estates of Galilee (prōtos the first-ones of Galilee, or the chief men). This was
a notable gathering, composed of men from governmental, military, and civil
life” (Kenneth S. Wuest, Word Studies: Volume
One)
[r] Other ancient authorities read the daughter of Herodias herself (nrsv, note). “The reading adopted in the
translation, τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ ῾Ηρῳδιάδος (tē thugatro
autou herōdiado), is supported by א B D L Δ 565 pc; it is also the most
difficult reading internally since it describes Herodias as Herod's daughter.
Other readings are less awkward, but they do not have adequate external support.
The reading τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς τῆς ῾Ηρῳδιάδος (tē thugatro autē tē erōdiado, "the
daughter of Herodias herself") is supported by A C (W) Θ Ë13 33 Ï, but
this is also grammatically awkward. The easiest reading, τῆς θυγατρὸς τῆς ῾Ηρῳδιάδος ("the daughter of Herodias") is supported
by Ë1 pc, but this reading probably arose from an accidental omission of αὐτῆς in the previous reading. The reading τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ ῾Ηρῳδιάδος, despite
its historical difficulties, is most likely original due to external attestation
and the fact that it most likely gave rise to the other readings as scribes
sought to correct it.” (NET Bible Note)
[s] “Pleased [Herod]” (erēsen). Only here in all of Mark.
Delighted. Does it have a sexual tone to it?
[t] “The king was deeply grieved”
(perilupos genomenos) “a concessive
clause, the participle, an ingressive aorist, indicating entrance into a new
condition” (Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest's
Word Studies, Volume One).
[u] “Soldier of the guard”
(σπεκουλάτωρ, spekoulátōr); gen.,
from the Latin, “speculator,” “spy.” A soldier, a sentinel. “These were soldiers
forming the bodyguard of kings and princes who also, according to oriental
custom, acted as executioners” (The
Complete Word Study Dictionary). It “originally meant a military scout, but
came to be used of soldiers with a special commission, for instance, as
bodyguards or when detailed to carry out an execution” France, p. 259.
[v] Gk his
(nrsv note).
[w] Brian Stoffregen, Exegetical
notes at CrosmMarks, http://www.crossmarks.com/brian/mark6x14.htm.
[x] Cited in Stoffregen, Ibid.
[y] David A. Fiensy, College Press New Testament Commentary: with
the NIV (College Press Publishing Co. , 1994)
[z] R.T. France, the New International Greek Testament
Commentary: The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company,
2002), p. 252.
[aa] Robert
Price, Was Jesus…, cited in Michal
Burton, Historical Commentary on the
Gospel of Mark: Chapter 6,
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark06.html#6.p.14.29
[cc] Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (1992), pp.
216-217.
[dd] Bratcher, Nida, Handbook on the Gospel of Mark (New
York: UBS, 1961), p. 198.
[ee]Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary
: New Testament, electronic ed., Mk 6:14 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
1997, c1993).
[gg] France,
pp, 256-257.
[hh]
Bratcher and Nida, p. 197.
[ii] France,
p. 255.
[jj] Craig S. Keener and
InterVarsity Press, The IVP Bible
Background Commentary : New Testament (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press, 1993).
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Textual, Translation Notes on Mark 6:14-29
The Death of John the Baptist
14 King Herod heard of it,[1]
for Jesus’ name had become known. Some[2]
were saying, “John the baptizer[3]
has been raised from the dead;[4]
and for this reason tshese powers are at work in him.”[5]
15 But others said, “It is Elijah.”[6]
And others said, “It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” 16
But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.”[7]
17 For Herod himself had sent[8]
men who arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias,
his brother Philip’s wife, because Herod[9]
had married her. 18 For John had been telling Herod, “It is not
lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” 19 And Herodias had a
grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. But she could not, 20
for Herod feared[10]
John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man,[11]
and he protected him.[12]
When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed;[13]
and yet he liked to listen to him.[14]
21 But an opportunity came[15]
when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and
for the leaders of Galilee.[16]
22 When his daughter Herodias[17]
came in and danced, she pleased[18]
Herod and his guests; and the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you
wish, and I will give it.” 23 And he solemnly swore to her,
“Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom.”
24 She went out and said to
her mother, “What should I ask for?” She replied, “The head of John the
baptizer.” 25 Immediately she rushed back to the king and requested,
“I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.”
26 The king was deeply
grieved;[19]
yet out of regard for his oaths and for the guests, he did not want to refuse
her. 27 Immediately the king sent a soldier of the guard[20]
with orders to bring John’s[21]
head. He went and beheaded him in the prison, 28 brought his head on a platter,
and gave it to the girl. Then the girl gave it to her mother.
29 When his disciples heard
about it, they came and took his body, and laid it in a tomb.
[1] This phrase is preceded by kai, “and.” It would have been very
helpful to put this in the translation, because it connects Herod’s thoughts on
Jesus and John, to the previous story. Leaving it out cuts it off from what has
just occurred.
[2] “Some” (elegon, ἔλεγον). Impersonal plural. Not, “they said”
but “some said.” The KJV has elegen,
which is similar, but has an “e” instead of an “o” and means, “he was saying,”
which is very likely incorrect. No modern translation follows the KJV in this.
Some, however, give it as an alternative reading.
[3] “The baptizer” Matthew and Luke use the
noun form (βαπτίστης, baptistēs), as a title, Mark prefers the participle (ὁ βαπτίζων, ho baptizōn), as in “the one who baptizes, or the baptizer,” as the
nrsv has here. Note v. 6:25, which
is one of only two instances in his Gospel of the word being used as a noun
(the other is Mark 8:28).
[4] “[Has been raised] from the dead” (ek nekrōn). More
like, “raised out of the dead.” Cf. Mark 9:9, 10, 12:25, 16:14.
[5] “These powers are at work in him” (ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ
δυνάμεις ἐν αὐτῷ, energousin hai
dunameis en autōi). Some interpreters suggest, “Mighty deeds are done by
him.”
[6] Expected in scripture to return to life on
earth were Elijah (Mal 4:5) and a prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15).
[7] The questions of Herod in 6:14-16 reflect
confusion in popular messianic expectations and anticipate similar questions in
8:27-30. Following “John, whom I beheaded,
has been raised,” the Texus receptus adds ek nekrōn, “from the dead.” But few modern
translations follow this.
[8] “Sent” (ἀπέστειλα, apesteilas). Verb, past participle, aorist, singular,
masq. Having sent. See above on
“send,” v. 7. Some have seen an intentional parallel from mark between Jesus
sending out the Twelve to do good and Herod sending out the guards to arrest
John and do evil.
[9] Gk he
(nrsv note).
[10] “Feared John” (ephobeito ton Iōanēn). Imperfect
tense, meaning that it is a continual
state of fear. Bratcher and Nida prefer “he held (John) in awe.” It fits the
context of the story better.
[11] “Holy man” (hagios). This is the only time in Mark’s
Gospel where a human is called “Holy.”
[12] “Protected him” (sunetērei) Imperfect tense, again,
meaning that he continued keeping John safe. France adds that the word
“indicates protection from Herodias rather than keeping in custody, though the
latter was also, of course, true” (p. 257).
[13] Other ancient authorities read he did many things, nrsv, note. The NET Bible notes, call the alternative reading here
“virtually nonsense,” and say it is an “unintentional corruption,” caused most
likely simply because “baffled” and “did” look alike in Greek. The word is ἠπόρει, ēporei,
“baffled,” “confused,” bewildered.” The majority of the manuscripts have the verb ποιέω, poieō, “I do,” which led
to the nrsv’s alternative (and the
kjv’s major) reading, “he did many
things.” But the better manuscripts
have ἀπορέω, aporeō, “I am at a loss,” which fits much better to the story and
leads to Herod’s being perplexed. NET notes, “The variation may be no more than
a simple case of confusion of letters, since the two readings look very much
alike.” The point, if this is the correct reading, is that John was saying
things that either Herod was not able to understand or (less likely) Herod
chose not to understand them. The Complete
Word Study Dictionary has, “Not knowing how to proceed, speak, or act.”
Thayer’s Greek Definitions has, “not
to know which way to turn.”
[14] “He liked to listen to him”
(hēdeōs ēkouen). Imperfect tense,
meaning that he continually enjoyed listening to John. Implication is that he
did it often, ongoing. This is the only time that this term shows up in Mark.
Mark has very few words like “gladly” or “liked” in it.
[15] “Opportunity came” (genomenēs hēmeras eukairou),
literally, “a day of opportunity,” “Lucky day,” “well timed.”
[16] That is, politicians, military, and the
wealthy. They included, “the lords (megas
great ones), the high captains (chiliarchos
commander of a thousand soldiers, a
Roman cohort), and chief estates of Galilee (prōtos the first-ones of Galilee, or the chief men). This was
a notable gathering, composed of men from governmental, military, and civil
life” (Kenneth S. Wuest, Word Studies: Volume
One)
[17] Other ancient authorities read the daughter of Herodias herself (nrsv, note). “The reading adopted in the
translation, τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ ῾Ηρῳδιάδος (tē thugatro
autou herōdiado), is supported by א B D L Δ 565 pc; it is also the most
difficult reading internally since it describes Herodias as Herod's daughter.
Other readings are less awkward, but they do not have adequate external support.
The reading τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς τῆς ῾Ηρῳδιάδος (tē thugatro autē tē erōdiado, "the
daughter of Herodias herself") is supported by A C (W) Θ Ë13 33 Ï, but
this is also grammatically awkward. The easiest reading, τῆς θυγατρὸς τῆς ῾Ηρῳδιάδος ("the daughter of Herodias") is supported
by Ë1 pc, but this reading probably arose from an accidental omission of αὐτῆς in the previous reading. The reading τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ ῾Ηρῳδιάδος, despite
its historical difficulties, is most likely original due to external attestation
and the fact that it most likely gave rise to the other readings as scribes
sought to correct it.” (NET Bible Note)
[18] “Pleased [Herod]” (erēsen). Only here in all of Mark.
Delighted. Does it have a sexual tone to it?
[19] “The king was deeply grieved”
(perilupos genomenos) “a concessive
clause, the participle, an ingressive aorist, indicating entrance into a new
condition” (Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest's
Word Studies, Volume One).
[20] “Soldier of the guard”
(σπεκουλάτωρ, spekoulátōr); gen.,
from the Latin, “speculator,” “spy.” A soldier, a sentinel. “These were soldiers
forming the bodyguard of kings and princes who also, according to oriental
custom, acted as executioners” (The
Complete Word Study Dictionary). It “originally meant a military scout, but
came to be used of soldiers with a special commission, for instance, as
bodyguards or when detailed to carry out an execution” France, p. 259.
[21] Gk his
(nrsv note).
