Water into Wine and the Beheading of John the Baptist: Early Jewish-Christian Interpretation of Esther 1 in John 2:1-11 and Mark 6:17-29 (Brown Judaic Studies, No. 150) [Hardcover]

Roger Aus (Author)

Product Details

• Hardcover: 76 pages
• Publisher: Scholars Pr (September 1988)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1555402453
• ISBN-13: 978-1555402457
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6 x 0.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #5,644,375 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5 stars A brilliant study with flawed conclusions, June 23, 2004

By 

Anne Rice "Anne Rice" (Little Paradise, California) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Water into Wine and the Beheading of John the Baptist: Early Jewish-Christian Interpretation of Esther 1 in John 2:1-11 and Mark 6:17-29 (Brown Judaic Studies, No. 150) (Hardcover)

This merticulous study of the New Testament descriptions of the Miracle at Cana, and the beheading of John the Baptist, relating them to the Book of Esther and the Targum on the Book of Esther is fascinating, intense, and at times dazzling. The author takes us on a deep journey into words, phrases, and verbal motifs, arguing that the New Testament writers invented the Cana miracle and John's martyrdom having been inspired by familiar Old Testament stories. Thrilled as I am by this wondrous scholarly detective work, I disagree totally with the conclusions. I think they're naieve. If Aus can see clearly that Cana and Esther connect, why couldn't Jesus of Nazareth see it? If Aus can see a connection between the Emperor's lavish style and promises in Esther and that of Herod, why couldn't Herodias see it and be inspired to ask for John the Baptist's head on a platter? Another argument which counters Aus is that the similarity of language and phrasing which he notes betweeen NT and OT here might have to do with the reporting of real events because the NT writers were familiar with that language. In other words the events are actual and the language describing them is literary. And lastly, let me say that it is highly unlikely that any gospel writer would have fabricated the story of John's beheading simply because John the Baptist was so popular and had so many followers. A gospel writer wanting to claim authority would not have simply made up something that went counter to what was known about such a famous personage. The gospels weren't written in isolation. They weren't written for isolated communities. Bauckham in his brilliant work has well established what anyone can see from the letters of Paul: word circulated widely and rapidly in the Christian communities. Followers of John the Baptist, or their sons and daughters would have been outraged by a fancy story of a beheading that never took place. Scholars simply don't understand how good communications were in biblical times, how rapidly word of something spread by ship and by Roman road, and how united by news and story people were. So we can not simply throw out the story of "the damsel's" dance and the beheading of John. The way to go in scholarship is to try to figure out more about the incident as it is reported. The real mystery is why did Salome dance before drunken men? Did she risk her entire reputation as a marriageable young woman when she did that to please Herod and obtain the head of the Baptist? Or was that actually permissable for a young woman? Just throwing out the whole story doesn't really help us. It's not realistic. Of course I can not go toe to toe with a scholar like Aus when it comes to studying the texts, but those are my strong conclusions. Nevertheless I recommend this book highly. I hope it finds wide circulation soon in attractive re-print. The trip is worth it but come to your own conclusions.