How Did John The Baptist Die?

[Neon Genesis]

According to the gospels, John the Baptist was beheaded by King Herod at the request of his daughter for a present but according to the writings of Josephus, John the baptist was executed by King Herod because he was afraid John's followers would start a rebellion. John Dominic Crossan argues in in his book Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography that the gospel accounts of John's death is a fictional account based on an earlier horror story from the Mediterranean about a man who beheads someone at a dinner at the request of a woman who had never seen a beheading before and wanted to. The differences in Josephus' account and the gospels puts literalist Christians in a bind. On the one hand, Christians will frequently cite Josephus as evidence that Jesus was a real person. On the other hand, Josephus paints a different portrayal of the life of John the baptist that blatantly contradicts the gospels. So, how did John the baptist really die and if literalist Christians accept Josephus' writings as historical evidence of the gospels, how can they reconcile his different account of John the baptist with the gospels?

[Ouroboros]

Everyday I learn something new. I didn't know Josephus wrote about John the Baptist.

[Che]

Everyday I learn something new. I didn't know Josephus wrote about John the Baptist.

 

Me too. I am so surprised to discover this.

 

I wonder if the standard Christian response "they are both correct" is applicable to this or if that only applies to conflicting events within the bible?

[Neon Genesis]

Everyday I learn something new. I didn't know Josephus wrote about John the Baptist.

Here's the quote from Jewish Antiquities:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him

[Phanta]

I don't believe that people are linear decision-makers. I frequently don't do things for just one reason. I have many reasons, and often one item pushes me over the edge, but it might still not be my main drive. Sometimes my primary drive is one thing, but a friend will judge a lesser drive as my primary--or only-- drive, when really it is secondary in my view and part of a complex network of drives. If my history were being recorded, who knows which view would dominate, and which one were "true". Often people are complete liars to even their deepest selves about why they are doing something.

 

So, the scenario presented here doesn't create a problem for me. If one person said he was killed in Egypt and another said Greenland, that would be more likely to make me question the fact he was killed, but drives don't have such an effect.

 

Phanta

[Neon Genesis]

But the gospels seem to imply that King Herod liked John the baptiat and he only did it to please his daughter whereas Josephus seems to indicate it was a political tactic.

[Shyone]

But the gospels seem to imply that King Herod liked John the baptiat and he only did it to please his daughter whereas Josephus seems to indicate it was a political tactic.

Not to be nit-picky, but all of that is possible.

 

Herod may have liked John the Baptist.

He may have executed John for rebellion.

He may even have done so at the request of his daughter, Salome.

 

But this is the part of the story that contradicts the gospel:

 

Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the biblical story puts John's execution in the dungeons of Herod's palace.

 

But if the actual place of execution is not specified in the gospel, then the gospel account would be "consistent with" Josephus' account. After execution, he may have been beheaded and the head brought to Herod/Salome.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the biblical story puts John's execution in the dungeons of Herod's palace.

 

But if the actual place of execution is not specified in the gospel, then the gospel account would be "consistent with" Josephus' account. After execution, he may have been beheaded and the head brought to Herod/Salome.

The gospels also say that John baptized for the remission of sins whereas Josephus says specificially that John's baptism was a ritual for the purification of the body.

[Shyone]

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the biblical story puts John's execution in the dungeons of Herod's palace.

 

But if the actual place of execution is not specified in the gospel, then the gospel account would be "consistent with" Josephus' account. After execution, he may have been beheaded and the head brought to Herod/Salome.

The gospels also say that John baptized for the remission of sins whereas Josephus says specificially that John's baptism was a ritual for the purification of the body.

I'm not sure I see an inconsistency here either.

 

Ritual purification of the body - baptism - done for the remission of sins. Ritually purifying the body of sin.

[mwc]

Assume the passage to be absolute fact in every sense. This makes "jesus" real how?

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

I'm not saying this is proof of the historical Jesus. My argument is that literalist Christians who accept Josephus as evidence of the historical Jesus must either accept that the bible is not literally true and historically accurate because Josephus reports a different account of John the Baptist's death the bible or they can't use Josephus as evidence. I'm also curious how a literalist would try to reconcile the two accounts since now we have two alleged eyewitness accounts reporting different contradictory accounts about the death of John the Baptist.

[Shyone]

I'm not saying this is proof of the historical Jesus. My argument is that literalist Christians who accept Josephus as evidence of the historical Jesus must either accept that the bible is not literally true and historically accurate because Josephus reports a different account of John the Baptist's death the bible or they can't use Josephus as evidence. I'm also curious how a literalist would try to reconcile the two accounts since now we have two alleged eyewitness accounts reporting different contradictory accounts about the death of John the Baptist.

I think I "crafted" a reasonable "apologetic" to resolve the differences between the two "apparently discrepant" accounts.

 

It all happened exactly the way both accounts depicted it. In every detail. There are no discrepancies.

 

[incidentaly, the Jesus passage in Josephus is either a complete interpolation or so badly corrupted that it is useless to anyone.]

[Neon Genesis]

But the gospels don't say John was killed to prevent a rebellion from the Jews. Mark 6:17-19 says says Herodias wanted John killed for saying you shouldn't take your brother's wife.

For Herod himself had sent men who arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because Herod* had married her. 18For John had been telling Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.’ 19And Herodias had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him.

That's a completely different situation than what Josephus' account is

Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.

[Shyone]

But the gospels don't say John was killed to prevent a rebellion from the Jews. Mark 6:17-19 says says Herodias wanted John killed for saying you shouldn't take your brother's wife.

For Herod himself had sent men who arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because Herod* had married her. 18For John had been telling Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.’ 19And Herodias had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him.

That's a completely different situation than what Josephus' account is

Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.

So John threatened to start a rebellion (inclination to raise a rebellion) because Herod married his brother's wife - and maybe he had a grudge because of what John said.

 

Coexisting facts are not the same as mutually exclusive facts.

 

Listen, I agree with you that the two accounts are widely discrepant. I'm saying that they can be reconciled by assuming things like 1) multiple motivations, 2) complex character involvement, and 3) lack of details.

 

This is different from the accounts of the resurrection, for example, where Jesus and his band of merry men were supposed to be in two places 60 miles apart on the same day.

[Neon Genesis]

But then why didn't Josephus simply say that Herod had John killed because of what he said about his Herodias like it does in the gospels?

[Dagan]

I wouldn't be surprised if both were true.

 

And even though the gospels and Christians try to downplay it, there's still evidence in Mark, Matthew and Luke that Jesus poached a lot of John's followers. So maybe John was executed to stop a rebellion, and his followers were scattered, but Jesus picked up a lot of them and shaped them into his own movement.

 

I'll try and post some bible verses later to support this theory.

[Neon Genesis]

I thought Jesus was a disciple of John the baptist?

[centauri]

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the biblical story puts John's execution in the dungeons of Herod's palace.

 

But if the actual place of execution is not specified in the gospel, then the gospel account would be "consistent with" Josephus' account. After execution, he may have been beheaded and the head brought to Herod/Salome.

The gospels also say that John baptized for the remission of sins whereas Josephus says specificially that John's baptism was a ritual for the purification of the body.

I'm not sure I see an inconsistency here either.

 

Ritual purification of the body - baptism - done for the remission of sins. Ritually purifying the body of sin.

It's my understanding that purification with water is not the same as remitting sins.

The Jewish description and use of the mikvah are for purification, which is not quite the same as atoning for sin.

If immersion in water was a blanket atonement for sin, and not simply a way to cleanse the impure condition associated with it, then I would think it should be listed as an uniform atonement procedure in Lev 4-5, which describes atonement via sin sacrifices.

As I understand it, immersion in water can establish ritual purity, which is a side effect of sin, but it doesn't fully atone for the sin itself.

In Lev 16:24, bathing in water is used for ritual purity, but it doesn't function as an full atonement for sin.

Josephus' description is in line with what I understand, while the Gospel accounts attempt to assign universal atonement power to the ritual, which seems to be an embellishment of its function.

 

http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/m.htm

"Mikvah" - (f., pl. "Mikvaot"); a ritual pool of water, used for the purpose of attaining ritual purity. Immersion in a Mikvah is performed for the following main purposes:

 

It is used in connection with Repentance, to remove the impurity of sin.

 

It is also used in connection with Conversion, because the convert has taken upon himself or herself to adopt the lifestyle of the Jew, that is based on the recognition of G-d as King of the Universe and on the obligation to perform the commandments of the Torah.

 

It is the ritual act that divides two periods of time - the period of separation when marital relations are forbidden, because the wife is in the state of "niddah," and the period of union when such relations are not only permissible but regarded as essential to a healthy marriage. (See also "Taharat HaMishpacha" - family purity)

Also these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikveh

http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/1541/jewish/The-Mikvah.htm

[Dagan]

Matthew 11:12:

From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. 13For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.

 

Sounds kind of revolutionary. Like Jesus took John's message and turned it into a spiritual revolution instead of a physical one.

 

At least one of the 12 defected from John. Andrew was a John disciple until he decided to follow Jesus instead. Andrew brought Peter to Jesus.

 

Jesus may have first been a disciple of John, but the gospels don't tell the story that way. But reading between the lines, there's good reason to suspect that Jesus swept up John's followers after John was executed, made John into a martyr figure by calling him the last of the biblical prophets, and adopting his message as a spiritual revolution.

[Shyone]

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the biblical story puts John's execution in the dungeons of Herod's palace.

 

But if the actual place of execution is not specified in the gospel, then the gospel account would be "consistent with" Josephus' account. After execution, he may have been beheaded and the head brought to Herod/Salome.

The gospels also say that John baptized for the remission of sins whereas Josephus says specificially that John's baptism was a ritual for the purification of the body.

I'm not sure I see an inconsistency here either.

 

Ritual purification of the body - baptism - done for the remission of sins. Ritually purifying the body of sin.

It's my understanding that purification with water is not the same as remitting sins.

The Jewish description and use of the mikvah are for purification, which is not quite the same as atoning for sin.

I'm sure you are right about the Jewish implications of ritual purification, and Josephus was a Jew, so he would have understood baptism with water as being ritual cleansing.

 

However, the New Testament has a phrase "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." The ritual involved water and perhaps dunking, so I'm not sure that Josephus would have accepted John's interpretation of this ritual.

 

A Jew, watching a ceremony of dunking, would understand it from the Jewish perspective. John had something else in mind - and whether he meant for the water to be interpreted as "baptism" or if "baptism" meant something else (perhaps symbolic) and the washing was ritual purification I can't say. Nowadays, we see the ritual of baptism as involving water correctly or not.

[centauri]

I'm sure you are right about the Jewish implications of ritual purification, and Josephus was a Jew, so he would have understood baptism with water as being ritual cleansing.

 

However, the New Testament has a phrase "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." The ritual involved water and perhaps dunking, so I'm not sure that Josephus would have accepted John's interpretation of this ritual.

 

A Jew, watching a ceremony of dunking, would understand it from the Jewish perspective. John had something else in mind - and whether he meant for the water to be interpreted as "baptism" or if "baptism" meant something else (perhaps symbolic) and the washing was ritual purification I can't say. Nowadays, we see the ritual of baptism as involving water correctly or not.

I don't think Josephus would have accepted John's dunking as a valid Jewish way to remit sins.

The New Testament "baptism" for remission of sins is an embellishment and perhaps borrowed from another religion.

The water of cleansing made from the ashes of a red heifer(Numbers 19), is also used to purify an unclean condition but it's sprinkled on the unclean person, it isn't a dunking.

 

If John the Baptist was really the coming of Elijah, then he was at odds with Jesus because Elijah was supposed to reconcile families and Jesus said he came to divide families.

The missions of Elijah and Jesus are in contradiction.

One would think that if Elijah was going to usher in the messianic era as Malachi implies, then he should have appeared and taken part in anointing Jesus as king.

But Elijah never showed up, nobody ever anointed Jesus as king, and John the Baptist was used as a poor substitute.

Since John the Baptist denied being Elijah, the whole issue is a convoluted mess in my opinion, trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

[mwc]

So, the scenario presented here doesn't create a problem for me. If one person said he was killed in Egypt and another said Greenland, that would be more likely to make me question the fact he was killed, but drives don't have such an effect.

According to Mark:

Chapter 1

4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

5 And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

12 The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.

14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

 

Chapter 6

14 King Herod heard of it; for Jesus' name had become known. Some said, "John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him."

16 But when Herod heard of it he said, "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised."

17 For Herod had sent and seized John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Hero'di-as, his brother Philip's wife; because he had married her.

20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe.

21 But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and the leading men of Galilee.

23 And he vowed to her, "Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom."

25 And she came in immediately with haste to the king, and asked, saying, "I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter."

27 And immediately the king sent a soldier of the guard and gave orders to bring his head. He went and beheaded him in the prison,

28 and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl; and the girl gave it to her mother.

If you take a look at this picture:

You can see Galilee and Paraea. Those are the territories that Herod the Tetrarch controlled. The only places he could assert any authority at all. Down in the lowest part of Paraea you can see Macharaerus. That's the fort that would have held JtB according to Josephus. This means this would have to be the "prison" that is mentioned in the gospel stories. The place where his disciples were traveling on a regular basis (though not in G.Mark).

 

Way up in Galilee you can see Tiberius. That's the capital city. That's where Herod would have been staying himself. So when the gospels say he through a birthday party for himself and all those people in Galilee they would have held it there. Unless we're supposed to think they decided to go down to Macharaerus (it was pretty nice and could have been used to hold a party but it's rather out of the way).

 

Anyhow, the story in G.Mark shows that Jtb shows up from the wilderness (which people like to place around Jerusalem but seems to equate more with just any place between cities...just what we'd imagine to be the wilderness) and the people from Judea head out to see him. This could indicate he was close to Judea around Peraea. Jesus comes from Galilee to get baptized which indicates that wherever they are isn't in Galilee. JtB gets arrested. Unless they were in Peraea I can't tell you how Herod actually managed to get ahold of John since they were apparently outside Galilee. If they were in Peraea then the closest prison could have been Macharaerus.

 

We're then told that JtB is already dead. Herod thinks he's come back from the dead. Apparently this isn't unheard of?

 

The story of how he dies is told in flashback. The party, as I said, is in Galilee but JtB is way down at the opposite end of the territory in prison. Herod makes a promise he cannot make (the emperor is the only one that can divide his kingdom not Herod and a female would be placed under a male in the Roman system...this was done when Herod the Great died). So when her daughter asks for his head on a platter they would have had to had dispatched someone down to the far reaches of his kingdom, put him to death, put his head in a sack, returned to Tiberius, placed it on a platter and presented it. Moving as fast as they possibly could I would imagine this would take 2 days (roughly 1 day travel each way riding nearly non-stop plus a quickie execution...which is all pretty unrealistic). The text indicates that all this takes place at the party but it can be argued that the promise took place at the party and the rest simply happened after the fact.

 

Really, we're being told that he's being executed in two different places. In one account he's being killed off in Galilee at a party and the other he's being killed off in Peraea.

 

mwc

[Phanta]

MWC,

 

Fascinating, as always. Thanks for writing that out. I read it through once, and am going to give it a couple more passes.

 

Phanta

[Shyone]

Really, we're being told that he's being executed in two different places. In one account he's being killed off in Galilee at a party and the other he's being killed off in Peraea.

 

mwc

I'm not really into seeing what kind of contrivance or apologetic could be "designed" for this "apparent conundrum", but I wonder if we are making assumptions that are unwarranted. Forgive me for not looking at every word for its precise meaning, but are we assuming (for example) that a "party" lasts a few hours from sunset to about midnight? What if a "party" was 2 weeks long? Or longer?

 

If the time needed to get from the top of the map to the bottom and back again is the only thing that shows that the execution on the prison and transportation of the head to Herrod was impossible (and I believe the accounts are contradictory), then we would need to know more about the parties they had.

 

IIRC, some parties lasted for days or weeks.

 

I don't know about birthday celebrations for kings, but here's a description of a party in ancient Egypt:

 

The festival of Choiak or Sokar rivaled that of Opet during the New Kingdom, but was a much older celebration. It was celebrated in the fourth month of the Egyptian civil calendar, lasting for six days during the interval of days 25 through 30, though by the Late Period, the festival grew to be much longer.

[mwc]

I'm not really into seeing what kind of contrivance or apologetic could be "designed" for this "apparent conundrum", but I wonder if we are making assumptions that are unwarranted. Forgive me for not looking at every word for its precise meaning, but are we assuming (for example) that a "party" lasts a few hours from sunset to about midnight? What if a "party" was 2 weeks long? Or longer?

 

If the time needed to get from the top of the map to the bottom and back again is the only thing that shows that the execution on the prison and transportation of the head to Herrod was impossible (and I believe the accounts are contradictory), then we would need to know more about the parties they had.

 

IIRC, some parties lasted for days or weeks.

 

I don't know about birthday celebrations for kings, but here's a description of a party in ancient Egypt:

 

The festival of Choiak or Sokar rivaled that of Opet during the New Kingdom, but was a much older celebration. It was celebrated in the fourth month of the Egyptian civil calendar, lasting for six days during the interval of days 25 through 30, though by the Late Period, the festival grew to be much longer.

 

Good questions and I have no good answers. I can post from Josephus in Against Apion where he speaks on marriage:

25. But, then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other

mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife,

and that this be used only for the procreation of children. But it abhors the

mixture of a male with a male; and if any one do that, death is its

punishment. It commands us also, when we marry, not to have regard to portion,

nor to take a woman by violence, nor to persuade her deceitfully and knavishly;

but to demand her in marriage of him who hath power to dispose of her, and is

fit to give her away by the nearness of his kindred; for, says the Scripture,

"A woman is inferior to her husband in all things." (23) Let her, therefore,

be obedient to him; not so that he should abuse her, but that she may

acknowledge her duty to her husband; for God hath given the authority to the

husband. A husband, therefore, is to lie only with his wife whom he hath

married; but to have to do with another man's wife is a wicked thing, which,

if any one ventures upon, death is inevitably his punishment: no more can he

avoid the same who forces a virgin betrothed to another man, or entices

another man's wife. The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our

offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to

destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a

murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human

kind; if any one, therefore, proceeds to such fornication or murder, he cannot

be clean. Moreover, the law enjoins, that after the man and wife have lain

together in a regular way, they shall bathe themselves; for there is a

defilement contracted thereby, both in soul and body, as if they had gone into

another country; for indeed the soul, by being united to the body, is subject

to miseries, and is not freed therefrom again but by death; on which account

the law requires this purification to be entirely performed.

He is pretty clear on male/male relations and abortion being a no-go here as well.

 

Now, Salome also divorced a husband (from AJ):

10. But some time afterward, when Salome happened to quarrel with

Costobarus, she sent him a bill of divorce (12) and dissolved her

marriage with him, though this was not according to the Jewish

laws; for with us it is lawful for a husband to do so; but a

wife; if she departs from her husband, cannot of herself be

married to another, unless her former husband put her away.

However, Salome chose to follow not the law of her country, but

the law of her authority, and so renounced her wedlock;

And this is what gets summed up about the whole thing a bit later:

But Herodias, their sister, was

married to Herod [Philip], the son of Herod the Great, who was

born of Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest, who had

a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to

confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her

husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod [Antipas],

her husband's brother by the father's side, he was tetrarch of

Galilee; but her daughter Salome was married to Philip, the son

of Herod, and tetrarch of Trachonitis; and as he died childless,

Aristobulus, the son of Herod, the brother of Agrippa, married

her;

Salome is not condemned for divorcing but Herodias is. It must not be the female filing divorce as much as the marriage between two living brothers that is the offense. This would also place these events prior to 34CE when Philip died.

 

This is from the section on birthdays in Against Apion:

26. Nay, indeed, the law does not permit us to make festivals at the births of

our children, and thereby afford occasion of drinking to excess; but it

ordains that the very beginning of our education should be immediately

directed to sobriety. It also commands us to bring those children up in

learning, and to exercise them in the laws, and make them acquainted with the

acts of their predecessors, in order to their imitation of them, and that they

might be nourished up in the laws from their infancy, and might neither

transgress them, nor have any pretense for their ignorance of them.

I did a quick once over of his writings and I couldn't find any discussions of parties related to Jewish births but a few that were attended by Jews but thrown by others (Titus threw one where he killed Jews...not the best invite in the world and before that it in the Seleucid period).

 

The last words said about these two in Josephus are:

Hereupon Caius was angry at her, and sent her with Herod into banishment, and gave her estate to Agrippa. And thus did God punish Herodias for her envy at her brother, and Herod also for giving ear to the vain discourses of a woman.

So they lose everything not because of adultery, divorce, marriage between two brothers but because Herodias was jealous of Agrippa I and Herod listened to his wife's nagging and went to the emperor and tried to increase the size of his kingdom. You'd think some of that other stuff might be part of this condemnation but I guess it was important enough to make the final cut.

 

mwc