For explains why Herod thought of John the Baptist when he heard about what Jesus was doing. In many languages it will be necessary to say something like “Herod thought this because he had seized….”

Had seized, a participle in Greek, narrates an action which took place prior to the events of verses 1-2. In order to clear up all doubt regarding the sequence of events, some Greek manuscripts insert the adverb “earlier.” This translational device is pursued as well by several modern translations (for example, Good News Translation and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch); Phillips has “For previously Herod had arrested John,” and New American Bible renders “Recall that Herod had had John arrested.”

Had seized may invite a misunderstanding (many translations say “had arrested”). Herod did not actually perform this action himself; he ordered, or caused, others to do it in his behalf. Thus “had ordered John to be arrested” represents a more accurate representation of the actual events. It may be better to shift to direct discourse: “had ordered his men, ‘Go and arrest John the Baptist.’ ” Another way to express this is “had ordered his men to arrest John.”

Bound him and put him in prison: here again it is necessary to substitute a causative verb (either “had caused” or “had ordered”), to avoid the possible misunderstanding that Herod himself physically tied up John and put him in prison. Barclay translates the sequence of events as follows: “had arrested John … and had imprisoned him in chains.”

The mention of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife occasions much difficulty, and in place of his brother Philip’s wife, some Greek manuscripts have a shorter text: “his brother’s wife” (RSV footnote). The difficulty is further complicated by information provided by Josephus, the Jewish historian. He identifies Herodias’ first husband as a son of Herod the Great, who himself was named Herod; and he further records that it was Herod the Great’s son “(Herod) Philip” (Luke 3.1) who married Herodias’ daughter Salome. In light of these observations TC-GNT concludes “It appears, therefore, that either Josephus failed to give the full name of Herodias’ first husband (Herod Philip), or Mark confused Herodias’ husband and son-in-law.” Matthew has in all probability followed Mark (6.17), where he found the name Philip. Later, certain scribes adopted the shorter reading in Luke (3.19), where the name was omitted, thus harmonizing Matthew’s account with that of Josephus. Most modern translations include Philip in the text. Revised Standard Version gives a footnote which includes the other manuscript tradition; New Jerusalem Bible has a footnote explaining the basis for the shorter text.

The phrase his brother Philip’s wife could make it seem that Philip and Herodias were still married to each other at the time of John’s arrest. As is clear in the following verses, this was not the case. “He did this because of Herodias, who had been the wife of his brother Philip” or “He did this because of Herodias. She had been married before to his brother Philip” are possible ways to express this. However, there are many languages where even this will be unnatural, because the normal way to tell a story is to narrate things in chronological order. Some of these will use occasional flashbacks, but not two or three in a row as here. In such cases it is often better to restructure verses 3 and 4 something like this: “Previously, Herod had married Herodias, but before that, she had been the wife of Herod’s brother Philip. John told Herod that this was not lawful, and so for the sake of Herodias, Herod ordered his men to arrest John and put him in prison.” Or “At one time Herodias had been married to Herod’s brother Philip. But then she married Herod, and John told Herod….” But see also the comments on flashbacks at the beginning of this section.

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1988. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .