Why the invention of Herod believing that Jesus was John redivivus

[Giuseppe]

Best answer: because in a previous narrative, Herod had killed Jesus himself.

So that earliest narrative was eclipsed by the rather easy apology: you are wrong, Herod killed John and not Jesus, and even Herod believed that his victim was Jesus.

So Herod emerges as the first historical person connected with Jesus.

The need of a "king" for the role of killer of Jesus was already explicit in the Ascension of Isaiah. The name of Herod was the logical consequence.

To have Jesus killed by the historical king of the Jews was an obstacle to see Jesus himself as the legitimate king of the Jews. ...as if Jesus was natural enemy of the "king of Jews"...

Hence, if Jesus had been crucified by a Roman governor, the point could be made easily, that Jesus was crucified as "king of the Jews", by eclipsing accordingly his old killer, "the king of the Jews" called Herod.

Once the name of Herod was found, the name of Pilate followed accordingly. And what is more, Paul was dated too in the time of Herod.

[Giuseppe]

At the end, what can we know about Christianity?

• That a deity was adored, hallucinated, etc.

• And a day such deity was said to appear on the earth "in the days of Herod".

• That such deity worked as Revealer.

• That such deity was crucified by the "king of the Jews", Herod, allegory of the demiurge.

• That Herod was replaced by Pilate to eclipse the original anti-demiurgism of the story intrinsic in the fact that Jesus was crucified by the true "king of the Jews".

• That, just as Herod was replaced by Pilate, so the Jesus crucified by Herod was replaced by John the Baptist beheaded by Herod.

That in short my view of Christian origins.

This Serpent — they say — is Cain whose sacrifice the God of this world did not accept, while he accepted the bloody one of Abel because — according to them — the despot of this world enjoys blood. Furthermore, this Serpent last appeared in the form of a man in the time of Herod ...

(pseudo-Hippolytus, Elenchos, V)

[Giuseppe]

Only this reconstruction explains, in my view, why the figure of John the Baptist was so radically duplicated to work in the same time:

• ...among Marcion and Catholics, at least one time in perfect agreement: as 100% Jewish prophet adorer of YHWH;

• ...among Mandeans, as the Revealer enemy of YHWH and of the Jesus sent by YHWH.

[lsayre]

I think you're commendably close to hitting on all cylinders here Giuseppe.

[Giuseppe]

Luke has the ping pong between Herod and Pilate.

Hence, assuming Marcionite priority, Marcion (i.e. proto-Luke) was the first to include both, harmonizing a previous narrative where only Herod killed Jesus and another more recent narrative where only Pilate killed Jesus.

Klinghardt is substantially correct to see embarrassment behind Mark's decision to not mention Herod in the Passion story, and behind his decision "to romanize" the guards beating Jesus.

Klinghardt gives as reason the apology of Jewish-Christians by Mark ("Mark" didn't like that the Jews and/or their king Herod were accused of having beaten Jesus).

I give as reason the apology of YHWH, Herod allegorizing the demiurge in the narrative where Herod is the king of the Jews, and not Jesus.

[arnoldo]

So Herod emerges as the first historical person connected with Jesus.

You are referring to Herod the Great, no?

herodian-family-tree.jpg (369.72 KiB) Viewed 954 times

Credit: Biblical Archaeology Society.

[Giuseppe]

If Herod suggested then the name of Pilate, then the Herod who was meant was Antipas.

The Ascension of Isaiah had an anonymous "king of the Jews" as killer of Jesus, and that king was later identified with Herod.

For another sect of Christians (witnessed then by the Toledoth Yeschu), that king was identified with Alexander Ianneus.