73.  John, unlike his greater successor, has a highly appreciative notice from Josephus:  “Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment for what he did against John, who was called the Baptist.  For Herod had had him put to death though he was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to justice towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for baptism would be acceptable to God, if they made use of it not in order to expiate some sin, but for the purification of the body, provided that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.  Now, as many flocked to him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, fearing that the great influence, John had over the people might lead to some rebellion (for the people seemed likely to do anything he should advise), thought it far 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 his leniency when it should be too late.  Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, in consequence of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the fortress before mentioned, and was there put to death.  So the Jews had the opinion that the destruction of this army [by Aretas] was sent as a punishment upon Herod and was the mark of God’s displeasure at him” (Ant. xviii. 5. 2).  This section is commonly accepted as trustworthy.  Superficially different from the gospel record and assigning quite another cause for John’s imprisonment and death, it correctly describes his character and his influence with the people, and leaves abundant room for a more intimately personal motive on the part of Antipas for the imprisonment of John.  If the jealousy of Herodias was the actual reason for John’s arrest, it is highly probable that another cause would be named to the world, and a likelier one than that given by Josephus could not be found.

74.  The first problem that offers itself in the study of this man is the man himself.  Whence did he come?  Everything about him is surprising.  He appears as a dweller in the desert, an ascetic, holding aloof from common life and content with the scanty fare the wilderness could offer; yet he was keenly appreciative of his people’s needs, and he knew their sins,—­the particular ones that beset Pharisees, publicans, soldiers.  If a recluse in habit, he was far from such in thought; he was therefore no seeker for his own soul’s peace in his desert life.  His dress was strikingly suggestive of the old prophet of judgment on national infidelity (I.  Kings xvii. 1; II.  Kings i, 8), the Elijah whom John would not claim to be.  His message was commanding, with its double word “Repent” and “The kingdom is near.”  His idea of the kingdom was definite, though not at all developed; it signified to him God’s dominion, inaugurated by a divine judgment which should mean good for the