Baptist (14, 1. 2[-11]). And thus in Mark and thus in Luke. The Jews held different opinions concerning these matters, some false, such as the Sadducees thought concerning the resurrection of the dead, that they are not raised, and concerning angels, that they do not exist, but that the things written about them were only to be interpreted allegorically and had nothing true as to history; but others [as] true, as concerning the resurrection of the dead, that they are raised, which the Pharisees taught. The question therefore concerning this passage is, if there was some such opinion about the soul, which Herod erroneously held and some of the people, that John, who had been put to death by him a short time before, rose from the dead after being beheaded, and was himself using another name and now being called Jesus, receptive of the same powers, which formerly were at work in John. What probability, then, does it have that the one so well-known to all the people and famous in all Judea, whom they said was the son of “the carpenter” and Mary and had such-and-such brothers and sisters, was thought to be none other than John, whose father was Zacharias and mother Elizabeth, who were themselves not obscure among the people? And it is likely that the people, thinking about John “that he was truly a prophet,” and being so numerous as to make the Pharisees afraid, so as not to seem to speak disagreeably to the people, to answer whether his baptism was “from heaven or from men,” were not ignorant that he was the son of Zacharias. Perhaps also word of the vision seen in the temple, when Gabriel appeared to Zacharias, reached some of them. What probability, then, does the deception have of either Herod or some of the people, to think that John and Jesus were not two individuals, but one and the same being John, who, having risen from the dead after being beheaded, was called Jesus? But one might say that the false doctrine of reincarnation had arisen in Herod and some of the people, from which they thought that the former John had come into being at birth and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But not even this false doctrine is allowed to be considered probable by the time between the birth of John and Jesus, which is not more than six months. But perhaps there was rather some such supposition in Herod, that the powers which had worked in John transferred to Jesus, by which John was believed among the people to be the Baptist. And one might use such an argument; just as on account of the spirit and power of Elijah and not on account of his soul it is said of John: “He is Elijah who is to come,” with the spirit in Elijah and the power in him having passed over to John, so Herod thought that the powers in John had worked in John the things of baptism and teaching—“for John did not one sign”—but in Jesus the miraculous powers. And someone will say that those who said that Elijah had appeared in Jesus, or that one “of the ancient” prophets had been raised, supposed the same thing. But the opinion of those who said “that he was a prophet like one of the prophets” has no need of investigation. False, therefore, is the saying either of Herod, <which> is recorded concerning Jesus, or that spoken by some. However, it seems to me more probable that the analogy of John having come “in the spirit and power of Elijah” applies to what is now being supposed about John and Jesus by these people. Since, first, we learned that after the temptation the Savior “hearing that John had been delivered up, withdrew into Galilee,” and second, that <John>, being in prison, hearing the things about Jesus, “sent two of his disciples and said to him: Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect another?” and third, simply that Herod said concerning Jesus, that he is John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead, but from nowhere did we know beforehand the manner of the Baptist’s execution, for this reason Matthew has now also recorded this, and Mark similarly to him; but Luke the many things from these

βαπτιστής (14, 1. 2[-11]). Παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ οὕτως καὶ παρὰ τῷ Λουκᾷ οὕτως. ∆ιαφόρους δόξας εἶχον περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων Ἰουδαῖοι, τινὰς μὲν ψευδεῖς, ὁποίας ἐφρόνουν οἱ Σαδδουκαῖοι περὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ὡς οὐκ ἐγειρομένων, καὶ περὶ ἀγγέλων ὡς οὐχ ὑπαρχόντων, ἀλλὰ τροπολογουμένων τῶν περὶ αὐτῶν ἀναγεγραμμένων μόνον καὶ μηδὲν ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἱστορίαν ἀληθὲς ἐχόντων· ἑτέρας δὲ [ὡς] ἀληθεῖς, ὡς περὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ὅτι ἐγείρονται, ἐδίδασκον οἱ Φαρισαῖοι. Τὸ οὖν ζητούμενον κατὰ τὸν τόπον ἐστίν, εἰ τοιαύτη τις ἦν περὶ ψυχῆς δόξα, ἣν ἐφρόνει Ἡρώδης ἐσφαλμένως καί τινες τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ, ὅτι ὁ πρὸ ὀλίγου ἀναιρεθεὶς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννης ἀνέστη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν μετὰ τὸ ἀποκεφαλισθῆναι, καὶ ἦν αὐτὸς ἑτέρῳ ὀνόματι χρώμενος καὶ καλούμενος νῦν Ἰησοῦς, δεκτικὸς τῶν αὐτῶν δυνάμεων, αἳ πρότερον ἐνήργουν ἐν τῷ Ἰωάννῃ. Ποίαν οὖν ἔχει πιθα νότητα τὸν ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον γνώριμον παντὶ λαῷ καὶ διαβόητον ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ, ὃν ἔλεγον υἱὸν εἶναι «τοῦ τέκτονος» καὶ Μαρίας καὶ ἀδελφοὺς ἔχειν τοιούσδε καὶ ἀδελφάς, νομίζεσθαι εἶναι οὐχ ἕτερον Ἰωάννου, ᾧ πατὴρ ἦν Ζαχαρίας καὶ μήτηρ Ἐλισάβετ, οὐδ' αὐτοὶ ἄσημοι ἐν τῷ λαῷ; Εἰκὸς δ' ὅτι ὁ λαὸς φρονοῦντες περὶ τοῦ Ἰωάννου «ὅτι ὄντως προφήτης ἦν», καὶ τοσοῦτοι τυγχάνοντες ὡς φοβεῖσθαι τοὺς Φαρισαίους, διὰ τὸ μὴ δυσάρεστον δοκεῖν τῷ λαῷ λέγειν, ἀποκρίνεσθαι, πότερον «ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἦν ἢ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων» τὸ βάπτισμα αὐτοῦ, οὐκ ἠγνόουν υἱὸν αὐτὸν τυγχάνειν Ζαχαρίου. Τάχα δὲ καὶ εἴς τινας ἔφθασεν αὐτῶν τὰ τῆς ἑωραμένης ὀπτασίας ἐν τῷ ναῷ, φανέντος τῷ Ζαχαρίᾳ τοῦ Γαβριήλ. Ποίαν δὴ οὖν ἔχει πιθανότητα ἡ τοῦ εἴτε Ἡρώδου εἴτε τινῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ ἀπάτη, πρὸς τὸ νομίσαι ὅτι οὐ δύο τινὲς γεγόνασιν ὁ Ἰωάννης καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἀλλ' εἷς καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς ὢν Ἰωάννης, ἀναστὰς μετὰ τὸ ἀποκεφαλισθῆναι ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἐκλήθη Ἰησοῦς; Λέγοι δ' ἄν τις τὴν τῆς μετενσωματώσεως ψευδοδοξίαν γεγονέναι ἐν τῷ Ἡρώδῃ καί τισι τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ, ἀφ' ἧς ᾤοντο τόν ποτε Ἰωάννην ἐν γενέσει γενέσθαι καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐληλυθέναι εἰς τὸν βίον ὡς Ἰησοῦν. Ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ταύτην τὴν ψευδοδοξίαν πιθανὴν ἐᾷ νομισθῆναι ὁ μεταξὺ χρόνος τῆς γενέσεως Ἰωάννου καὶ Ἰησοῦ, οὐ πλεῖον μηνῶν ἓξ τυγχάνων. Τάχα δὲ μᾶλλον τοιαύτη τις ὑπόληψις ἦν ἐν τῷ Ἡρώδῃ, ὅτι αἱ ἐνεργήσασαι δυνάμεις ἐν τῷ Ἰωάννῃ μετέστησαν ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν, ἀφ' ὧν ὁ Ἰωάννης βαπτιστὴς εἶναι πεπίστευτο ἐν τῷ λαῷ. Καὶ χρήσαιτό τις ἐπιχειρήματι τοιούτῳ· ὥσπερ διὰ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὴν δύναμιν Ἠλίου καὶ οὐ διὰ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ περὶ Ἰωάννου λέγεται· «Αὐτός ἐστιν Ἠλίας ὁ μέλλων ἔρχεσθαι», τοῦ ἐν Ἠλίᾳ πνεύματος καὶ τῆς ἐν ἐκείνῳ δυνάμεως μετεληλυθυιῶν ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰωάννην, οὕτως ᾤετο ὁ Ἡρώδης τὰς ἐν Ἰωάννῃ δυνάμεις ἐν μὲν τῷ Ἰωάννῃ ἐνηργηκέναι τὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος καὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας -»Ἰωάννης γὰρ ἐποίησε σημεῖον οὐδὲ ἕν»-, ἐν δὲ τῷ Ἰησοῦ τὰς τεραστίους δυνάμεις. Τὸ δ' ὅμοιόν τις φήσει ὑπειληφέναι τοὺς εἰρηκότας Ἠλίαν πεφηνέναι ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἢ προφήτην ἕνα «τῶν ἀρχαίων» ἐγηγέρθαι. Οὐδὲν δὲ ζητήσεως ἔχεται τὸ δόγμα τῶν εἰρηκότων «ὅτι προφήτης ὡς εἷς τῶν προφητῶν» ἦν Ἰησοῦς. Ψευδὴς μὲν οὖν ὁ τοῦ εἴτε Ἡρώδου λόγος, <ὃς> περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐστιν ἀναγεγραμμένος, εἴτε ὁ ὑπό τινων εἰρημένος. Πλὴν δοκεῖ μοι μᾶλλον ἔχεσθαι πιθανότητος τὸ ἀνάλογον τῷ «ἐν πνεύματι καὶ δυνάμει Ἠλίου» προεληλυθέναι τὸν Ἰωάννην τοῖς νῦν ὑπονοουμένοις περὶ Ἰωάννου καὶ Ἰησοῦ ὑπὸ τούτων. Ἐπεὶ δὲ πρῶτον μὲν ἐμάθομεν ὅτι μετὰ τὸν πειρασμὸν ὁ σωτὴρ «ἀκούσας ὅτι Ἰωάννης παρεδόθη, ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν», δεύτερον δὲ ὅτι <Ἰωάννης> ἐν τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ τυγχάνων, ἀκούσας τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, «πέμψας δύο τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ἢ ἕτερον προσδοκῶμεν;» καὶ τρίτον ἁπαξαπλῶς ὅτι Ἡρώδης εἶπε περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν Ἰωάννης ὁβαπτιστής· αὐτὸς ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν, οὐδαμόθεν δὲ προέγνωμεν τὸν τρόπον τῆς ἀναιρέσεως τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ, διὰ τοῦτο νῦν καὶ τοῦτο ἀνέγραψεν ὁ Ματθαῖος, καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος δὲ αὐτῷ παραπλησίως· ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς τὰ πολλὰ τῆς παρὰ τούτοις