sign in sign up
<<
Home , Account of John, Life of John the Baptist, Prophet, Quirinius

1

JOHN THE BAPTIST. A 1st-century Jewish oracular prophet significant in the NT as a precursor of . was an ascetic, and conducted a ministry in the Judean wilderness that involved preaching and . His popularity and the revolutionary possibilities of his message of social justice led to his arrest, imprisonment, and execution by , probably in A.D. 28 or 29. A. The Sources, Their Character, and Their Use 1. 2. Mark 3. Matthew 4. Luke-Acts 5. John B. A Reconstruction of John’s Mission 1. The Origin of John the Baptizer 2. John’s Prophetic Mission C. Summary A. The Sources, Their Character, and Their Use There are two forms of John’s in the NT: ho baptistēs “the baptist” is a formal title; ho baptizōn “the baptizer” is an epithet. Grammatically, the latter form is a present active participal in which the verbal meaning of habitual behavior rings strongly; it most likely was the earlier form, historically speaking. The sources for determining the history of John the Baptist are the NT and Josephus. In the NT John is referred to in all four and in the book of Acts, while in Josephus there is one short but suggestive passage. This passage is especially important because it is the only extrabiblical source. However, we cannot use either of these sources without weighing their historical reliability. All ancient historical documents are biased in one way or another by special interests and apologetic concerns. This judgment applies to Josephus as well as to the NT. The distinctive character and perspectives of each of the gospels and Acts have been greatly illuminated through tradition criticism, redaction criticism, the new literary criticism, and social science criticism. Likewise the interests (both social and personal) that govern Josephus’ histories have come under closer scrutiny. All of this newer understanding (as well as older methods of scholarship) must be considered as we try to determine the history of John the Baptizer. How does John appear in each of the sources? The sources will be examined in the order Josephus, Mark, Matthew, Luke-Acts, John. (Neither at this point, nor elsewhere in this study, is any single theory of origins assumed.) 1. Josephus. Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities is a work of 20 books relating the history of the Jews from creation to the Jewish-Roman war of 66–70 C.E. The immediate context of Josephus’ report about John is an account of events during the early 1st century C.E., beginning with the assessment of property in by the governor of , QUIRINIUS (see also CENSUS, ROMAN). This occasioned an uprising under Judas 2 the Galilean, the narrating of which leads Josephus to describe the three “philosophies” of (the , , and ESSENES), as well as the “fourth philosophy” (the ) started by Judas. He reports among other events the building of Tiberias by Herod Antipas and various indiscretions by Pilate, who was procurator of Judea. Especially important is the report of Jesus’ life and death in a paragraph (Ant 18.3.3) a bit shorter than the one about John, a paragraph whose authenticity has been hotly disputed in modern times. The paragraph about John the Baptist is immediately preceded by an account of Herod’s divorce from the daughter of Aretas, king of Petra, and of the latter’s retaliation by making war on Herod. Aretas defeated Herod, and the paragraph on John picks up from that defeat, which some Jews believed was caused by as just vengeance on Herod for his execution of John. He had executed John even though the latter was said to be a good man who exhorted his fellow Jews to live righteously and practice justice and piety. Josephus observes that John baptized people as bodily parallel to inward cleansing. But the size of John’s movement frightened Herod and so he struck preemptively by executing John at the fortress of Machaerus. The text of Josephus’ account of John the Baptist follows: But to some of the Jews the destruction of Herod’s army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had put him to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice justice toward their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing join in baptism. In his view this was a necessary preliminary if baptism was to be acceptable to God. They must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by right behavior. When others too joined the crowds about him, because they were aroused to the highest degree by his sermons, Herod became alarmed. Eloquence that had so great an effect on mankind might lead to some form of sedition, for it looked as if they would be guided by John in everything that they did. Herod decided therefore that it would be much better to strike first and be rid of him before his work led to an uprising, than to wait for an upheaval, get involved in a difficult situation and see his mistake. Though John, because of Herod’s suspicions, was brought in chains to Machaerus, the stronghold that we have previously mentioned, and there put to death, yet the verdict of the Jews was that the destruction visited upon Herod’s army was a vindication of John, since God saw fit to inflict such a blow on Herod. (Josephus Ant 18.5.2 §116–19) The following observations concern this report. Points 1–3 concern Josephus as an author; points 4–7 are about John’s life. 1. Josephus did not have to report the connection between John and Herod’s death in order to tell the history of Herod. Why did he report it? 2. Josephus judged John favorably as a good man. (Thus John was good grist for Josephus’ apologetic mill.) 3

3. Josephus knew John’s “theology.” Baptism was a bodily action parallel to and expressive of soul cleansing and righteous behavior. 4. John exhorted people to live uprightly and to practice just acts toward others and piety toward God. 5. John baptized people who responded to his exhortations. 6. John was popularly known after his death to the degree that people could connect him with Herod’s defeat by Aretas, king of Petra. John had a high degree of prominence. 7. Herod killed John preemptively because he became suspicious of and alarmed by the size and enthusiasm of John’s following. 2. Mark. At the beginning of Mark’s story of Jesus, John appears prominently as a preacher and baptizer to whom many people—including Jesus of Nazareth—responded. As Jesus is baptized, God tells him that he is his son. After John is arrested, Jesus begins his own preaching mission in Galilee. However, the narrative of John’s arrest and execution (6:14–29) is held until about one-third of the way through the gospel. A previous narrative concerns John’s disciples’ practice of fasting as the Pharisees did, in contrast to the practice of Jesus’ disciples, who didn’t fast (2:18–22). John the Baptist next appears in the middle of the gospel, at the point where Jesus asks his disciples who people say he is; some answer that he is John (8:28). Finally, when Jesus is in Jerusalem, and the Jewish leaders ask Jesus about his authority, he evades answering directly by asking them whether they believe John’s baptism was from God or not (11:27–33). The following observations may be made about how John the Baptist fits into Mark as a story, and about what we learn concerning John beyond what is found in Josephus. First, regarding Mark as a story, Mark tells us very little about John. This gospel seems to have no interest in John for his own sake. Second, Mark’s interest is in Jesus; consequently, all of the material about John is subordinated to this interest. John’s preaching and baptizing mission gives Mark the opportunity to emphasize that the missions of both John and Jesus are the fulfillment of (1:2–3). John is seen obliquely as (1:6; 9:11–13), who prepares the way for Jesus and announces his arrival as the one mightier than John: Jesus will baptize with the rather than with water (1:1–8). The fasting of John’s disciples gives Mark a chance to portray Jesus and his disciples as the new, to be contrasted with the old (2:18–22). John’s death becomes an opportunity for Mark to emphasize that Jesus and his true disciples must also face death if they are to remain faithful (6:7–44; 8:34; 9:13; 13:9–13). Finally, John’s popularity makes possible Mark’s portrayal of Jesus as superior to the Jerusalem authorities (11:27–33). Regarding John’s life, it can be observed that: 1. John was a prophet (1:6–8; 11:32) who lived an ascetic life (1:6; 2:18) in the wilderness (1:4). 2. He preached that people should repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of one’s sins. Those to whom he preached included Herod Antipas (6:18). 4

3. He also predicted that a person far mightier than himself would come and baptize with the Holy Spirit those whom he had baptized with water (1:7–8). 4. Many people responded to his preaching and were baptized (1:5). They took him for a prophet (11:32); some of them remained with him as his disciples (2:18; 6:29); they fasted as the Pharisees did (2:18); and some of them buried John (6:29). John’s movement was of a magnitude similar to that of Jesus’ (6:14–16; 8:28). 5. One of those baptized by John was Jesus, who believed that John was Elijah (9:11–13); Jesus’ disciples did not fast (2:18). 6. The Jerusalem authorities knew John well and were aware of his reputation as a prophet (11:30–33). 7. Herod arrested and killed John for personal reasons, because John criticized him for marrying his sister-in-law, (6:17–18). Herod killed John because of pressure from Herodias (6:19). He himself didn’t want to kill John because he also regarded him as a righteous and holy man (6:20). 8. Jesus began his preaching mission in Galilee after John had been arrested (1:14). 3. Matthew. Matthew’s distinctive use of traditions about John the Baptist is evident from deviations from Mark both in material with parallels in Mark and in additional material. After Matthew’s story of Jesus’ birth, John appears in the wilderness preaching not (as in :4) a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins,” but rather repentance, “for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 3:2). This is exactly the same message that Jesus preached in his own mission (4:17), and is just one of many ways in which Matthew ties John and Jesus together. Other links are the story of children sitting in the market, in which John and Jesus are portrayed equally as messengers from God who are rejected by their generation (11:16–19), and the ignoble death meted out to both (17:9–13). Whereas Mark’s ordering of material implies that John is the forerunner of the Messiah, Matthew makes this point explicitly through the formula he uses eleven times to introduce fulfilled prophecy: “For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet” (3:3). (This proof from prophecy is only one example of the generally argumentative character of Matthew.) Matthew’s emphasis on prophecy fulfillment probably accounts for his placement of the description of John’s way of life next (3:4–6). Matthew means to say here (as he makes explicit later on [17:9–13]) that John is Elijah, who must precede the Messiah, who is Jesus. Another of Matthew’s major themes appears in John’s extremely harsh preaching against the Pharisees and the Sadducees (3:7–10, 12). They are declared by John to be presumptuous hypocrites who have to be with obvious insincerity (3:7). This theme of insincerity is developed with respect to the Pharisees in Matthew 23. The character of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem is likewise portrayed in the question about Jesus’ authority (21:23–27), as well as in the parable of the two sons that follows (21:28–32). In both cases the leaders refuse to believe that John the Baptist is a prophet of God (referred to euphemistically as “heaven,” “righteousness,” 21:26, 32), which makes them 5 worse than the lowest members of society, “tax collectors and harlots,” who did believe John (21:32). The next section, found exclusively in Matthew, contains a conversation between Jesus and John (3:14–15). It indicates that John knew Jesus, and implies that he knew Jesus to be the sinless Messiah. This episode has two Matthean emphases: how close John and Jesus are, and how wrong John’s followers are when they do not turn to follow Jesus after Jesus’ baptism by John. In Mark, the entire populace asks Jesus why John’s disciples fast, unlike Jesus’ disciples; in Matthew (9:14) by contrast, John’s disciples themselves ask the question, and thereby condemn themselves through the implicit association with unbelieving Pharisees. They are the “old” in contrast to John and Jesus who are the “new” (9:16–17). It is in this light that we can understand John the Baptist’s question to Jesus as Matthew intends it (11:2–6). John of course clearly knows that Jesus is “he who is to come” (3:1– 17). This episode is told by Matthew for the benefit of John’s disciples, who have not yet become Christians. “And blessed is he who takes no offense at me” (11:6), i.e., you people who in the late 1st century still remain followers of John instead of Jesus, whom John declared mightier than himself (3:11). This message is additionally emphasized in the next section (Matt 11:7–15). John is praised as the prophet Elijah, as “more than a prophet,” as the messenger of the Messiah, as the greatest of humans (11:9, 10, 11, 14); at the same time it is Matthew’s belief that the least Christian is greater than John (11:11), even though Christians suffer violence as John and Jesus did (11:12). That John suffered violence is shown by the story of his death (14:1–12). This tale, as well as the report that some thought that Jesus was John the Baptist (16:14), again shows the close connection between prophet and Messiah. Indeed, John and Jesus are united in a common liquidation at the hands of the powerful (17:9–13), whose antagonism to both prophet and Messiah (in contrast to Jesus’ high regard for John) is seen once more in the passage where the Jerusalem officials question Jesus’ authority (Matt 21:23–27). Matthew has used John the Baptist traditions with distinctive aims and purposes, among which the following are prominent: 1. John is the prophet (Elijah) of Jesus (the Messiah). John knowingly prepares for Jesus’ coming as Messiah, while Jesus knowingly regards John as Elijah, the greatest of humans before Jesus. 2. John and Jesus are equally men of God. All righteous people (Jesus’ disciples, Christians) will believe their messages, while the unrighteous (John’s disciples, Pharisees, Herod, Jewish leaders) disbelieve and even kill them. 3. Despite Jesus’ high regard for John, even the least Christian is greater than John. What historical material beyond that found in Josephus and Mark is present in Matthew? 1. There is an additional reference to John’s asceticism (11:18). 6

2. John harshly attacked the Pharisees and Sadducees (3:7–10), Herod (14:4), and the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem (21:32). These people did not believe in John, but outcasts such as tax collectors and harlots did (21:32). 3. John preached the same message as Jesus (3:2; 4:17). 4. John knew of Jesus and regarded him as the sinless Messiah before he baptized him (3:14–15). Jesus regarded John very highly (11:9–14), but he regarded his own followers even more highly (11:11). 5. While John was in prison he had doubts about whether Jesus really was the Messiah (11:2–6). These doubts evidently rested on the unexpected character of Jesus’ activity and message (11:5–6). 4. Luke-Acts. As in the case of Mark and Matthew, the author of Luke-Acts also has a distinctive portrayal of John the Baptizer. This is seen most readily and fully in the birth story of John and Jesus ( and 2), and the account of John’s appearance as a baptizer and Jesus’ baptism (3:1–22). Luke’s perspective is succinctly summed up by Jesus himself in 16:16: “The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached.” Thus, Luke fits John into his historical scheme: Israel (law and prophets including John), Jesus, and the Christian Church. Most distinctive in Luke is the opening tale, which interweaves the stories of the birth of John and Jesus. The scheme can be set out as follows: The announcement of John’s birth (1:5–25) The announcement of Jesus’ birth (1:26–35) The two mothers meet (1:36–45) Mary praises God for Jesus (1:46–56) Zechariah praises God for John (1:57–80) Thus we have the chiastic pattern A, B, A + B, B, A. In this way Luke makes the basic two-sided point: John the Baptist and Jesus are closely allied in the scheme of salvation, but John is subordinate to Jesus. John and Jesus are allied through Luke’s stories of their births, which are united together because their mothers are relatives (1:36); both births are miraculous and thus merit special praise to God. Yet John is subordinated to Jesus in several ways: Elizabeth is barren and both she and her husband are very old, yet she conceives in the normal manner (1:24), while Mary conceives by the Holy Spirit when she is still unmarried (1:34–35); when Mary greets Elizabeth, the fetus (the John) leaps in her womb for joy in the presence of the mother of her Lord, i.e., Jesus the Messiah (1:41, 44). Finally, and most importantly, John is clearly only a prophet (1:76) like Elijah (1:17), while Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah (1:32–35). Perhaps most significant for our analysis is that after the birth story there follows the story of John’s appearance and Jesus’ baptism (chap. 3). The same themes of alliance between John the Baptist and Jesus, with the subordination of the former to the latter, are again present. Essentially, John is the prophet of Jesus the Messiah. Apparently, John does not even baptize Jesus, since he is already imprisoned when Jesus is baptized 7

(3:20, 21; cf. 4:14 with Mark 1:14). John’s prophetic status is emphasized by the inclusion of his prophetic preaching to the wealthy, tax collectors and soldiers (3:10– 14), as well as by the note about reproval of Herod for his marriage to Herodias and “for all the evil things that Herod had done” (3:1, 9–20). The implied antipathy between John and Herod is echoed later by Herod’s wish to kill Jesus and the latter’s defiant response (13:31–33). This reference reminds us that Luke omitted the story of John’s execution by Herod (after 9:7–9), and this omission expresses Jesus’ distinctive superiority to John, for it is the Messiah who must die in a special way (24:26). In the baptism story it is made explicit that Jesus—not John—is the Messiah (3:15–17). Luke elaborates the distinction between John’s and Jesus’ disciples. Along with fasting he adds prayer as another difference between them (5:33; 11:1) and he molds the “parable” of the garment so as to emphasize the rejection of Jesus by John’s (and the Pharisees’) disciples: they say “The old is good” (5:39, 36). Furthermore, Luke emphasizes more than the other gospels the difference between positive and negative responses of various groups to John and so to Jesus. This difference is not only present in the tales about Jesus’ authority (20:1–8) and John’s question to Jesus (7:18–23), but is made even more fully in Jesus’ comments on John, which set out the different responses to John’s preaching. Luke’s Jesus declares that “all the people and the tax collectors” accepted baptism by John while the “Pharisees and the lawyers” did not, and they thereby rejected the “purpose of God for themselves” (7:29–30). Thus, in various ways John the Baptist is the transitional figure between “the law and the prophets” and Jesus the , the Son of God. This view is confirmed by all seven references to John the Baptist in Luke’s second volume, the book of Acts. 5. John. The picture of John the Baptizer in the is very clearly focused, and as in Luke’s case it may be summed up in one of the gospel’s pungent statements: “He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light” (1:8). In accordance with this gospel’s outlook, John the Baptist is not seen in strictly historical terms. Rather, the terminology is abstract and especially legal: John is essentially a witness sent by God (1:6) to tell the truth about Jesus (5:33, 35; 10:41). This basic theme is sustained by two subthemes; John is not the light, rather Jesus is the light; since Jesus is the light he ranks before John and must increase in stature, while John must decrease. Apart from brief references to John the Baptist in chaps. 5 and 10, all of the material about the Baptizer is found in chaps. 1 and 3. The opening of the gospel presents Jesus as the true light of the world and John as the true witness to that light. The basis for the truth of John’s witness is that he was “sent from God” (1:6). But that he was really sent from God and that he speaks the truth is shown substantively by his exaltation of Jesus over himself (1:15), and by his denial before Jews sent from Jerusalem that he has any status as Messiah, as Elijah, or as the prophet (1:19–28). As a witness John is simply the voice announcing the coming of Jesus as Lord and Son of God (1:23, 34), who was revealed to him and Israel as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29, 36) during his baptizing mission (1:30, 33). Moreover, John baptizes only with 8 water (1:26, 31) while Jesus “baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (1:33). Finally, John’s disciples turn to Jesus because they too see him as the Messiah (1:35–41). After Jesus performs various signs which manifest his glory (2:11), all of these basic themes are reemphasized in the second half of chap. 3 (including 4:1). Prior to John’s imprisonment (3:24), he and Jesus are carrying on parallel baptizing missions. However, Jesus and his disciples are “making and baptizing more disciples than John” (3:26; 4:1). When John’s disciples report this to him, he is not chagrined at all; rather he is filled with joy because these developments conform to his true testimony that he must decrease while Jesus the Christ must increase (3:26–30). These, then, are the sources at our disposal. They must be used critically in any attempt to describe the life of John the Baptist and his following. Scholars who focus on the history of the Christian groups that produced the gospels try also to ascertain the relation of these groups to followers of John the Baptist as this is reflected in the gospels. For example, gospel materials that emphasize John’s allegiance and subordination to Jesus are seen as evidence for (1) the existence of discrete groups of John’s followers in the late 1st century and (2) the Christians’ efforts to convert them to Jesus as the Christ. Here we will focus only on an attempt to reconstruct the career of John. B. A Reconstruction of John’s Mission Historical reconstruction requires critical methodology in at least two areas: (1) the development and use of criteria to judge the historical reliability of evidence, and (2) the development and use of appropriate models for locating biblical persons and groups in settings which are understandable to modern readers. The former requirement has engaged scholarship for generations, and some degree of consensus has been reached (Boring 1985; Oakman 1986, Appendix 1). Yet scholars always vary in their application of various criteria. In the present reconstruction the “environmental criterion” is seen as of primary importance. This criterion states that evidence must fit the situation of the persons or groups being studied. The latter requirement is quite new in scholarship because the social sciences, from which appropriate models are derived, have not been used much until recently. This has been the case not only in biblical studies (Hollenback 1983) but also in all historical scholarship on the ancient world. However, now scholars have demonstrated that researchers must develop and use appropriate models if they are to avoid ethnocentric and anachronistic reconstructions. (For biblical studies see especially the work of Malina; for the ancient world in general see especially Carney 1975 and Kautsky 1982.) Briefly, for our immediate purposes, the studies of Richard A. Horsley (1984; 1985) are especially helpful. As we reconstruct the “historical John the Baptist,” it will be seen that he fits quite well the type “oracular prophet,” which Horsley distinguishes from the “action prophet.” These in turn he distinguishes from “social bandits” and “popular kings” as well as sicarii and zealots. These types must be seen in two primary settings: (1) the specific socioeconomic conditions of 1st-century Palestine and (2) the specific cultural traditions of Israel. The essence of the former is the aristocratic-peasant social 9 structure while the essence of the latter are the traditions derived from the Hebrew scriptures that remain popular in the oral traditions of the non-literate population. The aristocratic-peasant social structure is characterized primarily by exploitation of the latter by the former through heavy taxation and brutal treatment. These conditions were perennial, but they were exacerbated in times of devastating crises such as famines and wars. Thus varieties of social disturbance were the result. This was especially the case at the time of Herod’s death in 4 B.C.E., ’s rule (26–36 C.E.), and just before and during the great revolt (66–70 C.E.). The cultural traditions of Israel help us to grasp the various social types present in 1st- century Palestine. We are especially interested in the prophetic types (Horsley and Hanson 1985; Horsley 1985). The “action prophet” both announced the messages of God and led a popular movement with the expectation that God would intervene in liberating action. The prototype of the tradition was from Egypt. , and the Judges were the main prototypes, as on a lesser scale perhaps were Elijah and . In the 1st century there was the unnamed prophetic leader of the who led a movement to restore the on Mt. Gerizim, a movement which was ruthlessly crushed by Pilate (Ant 18.4.1 §85–87). Around 45 C.E. led a movement to the Jordan River in apparent imitation of the Exodus, but he and his followers were also crushed by the Judean governor Fadus (Ant 20.5.1 §97–98). Finally, about 56 C.E., a Jewish prophet from Egypt led a movement to capture Jerusalem by commanding the walls to fall down in apparent imitation of Joshua at Jericho. In this case the leader escaped but many of his followers were killed by the governor Felix (Ant 20.8.6 §168–71; JW 2.13.5 §261–63). Josephus’ accounts of these and other similar prophetic movements establish a distinctive pattern: a popular prophet preaches a message of liberation that captures the imagination of the common people, who then march out en masse to a holy site expecting a miraculous deliverance from God as in the days of old. The “oracular prophet” did not lead such a movement, but rather only pronounced words of judgment or redemption, as did the classical prophets of the 8th and 7th centuries. The two cases in the 1st century about whom we have some information are John the Baptizer and Jesus son of Ananias. We shall note the case of the latter in order to see the pattern of the oracular prophet, and then test whether John the Baptizer fits the category as far as we can determine from our sources. The following is Josephus’ narrative concerning Jesus son of Ananias: But a further portent was even more alarming. Four years before the war [62 C.E.], when the city was enjoying profound peace and prosperity, there came to the feast at which it is the custom of all Jews to erect tabernacles to God, one Jesus, son of Ananias, a rude peasant, who, standing in the temple, suddenly began to cry out, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds; a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, a voice against the bridegroom and the bride, a voice against all the people.” Day and night he went about all the alleys with this cry on his lips. Some of the leading 10 citizens, incensed at these ill-omened words, arrested the fellow and severely chastised him. But he, without a word on his own behalf or for the private ear of those who smote him, only continued his cries as before. Thereupon, the magistrates, supposing, as was indeed the case, that the man was under some impulse, brought him before the Roman governor; there, although flayed to the bone with scourges, he neither sued for mercy nor shed a tear, but, merely introducing the most mournful of variations into his ejaculation, responded to each stroke with “Woe to Jerusalem!”. When Albinus, the governor, asked him who and whence he was and why he uttered these cries, he answered him never a word, but unceasingly reiterated his dirge over the city, until Albinus pronounced him a maniac and let him go. During the whole period up to the outbreak of war he neither approached nor was seen talking to any of the citizens, but daily, like a prayer that he had conned, repeated his lament, “Woe to Jerusalem!”. He neither cursed any of those who beat him from day to day, nor blessed those who offered him food: to all men that melancholy presage was his one reply. His cries were loudest at the festivals. So for seven years and five months he continued his wail, his voice never flagging nor his strength exhausted, until in the siege, having seen his presage verified, he found his rest. For, while going his round and shouting in piercing tones from the wall, “Woe once more to the city and to the people and to the temple,” as he added a last word, “and woe to me also,” a stone hurled from the ballista struck and killed him on the spot. So with those ominous words still upon his lips he passed away (JW 6.5.3 §300–9). There were many other prophets besides Jesus son of Ananias, to whom Josephus refers only in general terms. For example, Josephus refers to “numerous prophets” who called on the people in the midst of crises during the great revolt, to “await help from God” for their deliverance (JW 6.5.2 §286). These prophets also follow a distinctive pattern: an oracular prophet preaches a message either of judgment on the powerful (e.g., Jesus son of Ananias), or of deliverance for the suffering masses in the midst of crises when apocalyptic hope is at fever pitch among the common people (e.g., the “numerous prophets” in Jerusalem during the war). They are regarded by the “upper-class Roman collaborators” either as threats to political stability or as raving madmen, so the authorities try to silence or even kill them. “Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!” (Matt 23:37; :34). Now our question is whether John the Baptist was one of these oracular prophets. 1. The Origin of John the Baptizer. Since Josephus says nothing about John’s origin, we must depend on the gospels. The case for understanding Luke’s birth story of John as legendary no longer needs demonstration (R. E. Brown 1977). Yet, whether or not Luke 1 and 2 reflect a Baptist source (Wink 1968, Dodd 1963), there seems to be no good reason to doubt that, as this story indicates (Luke 1:5), John was a descendant of devout rural . Indeed, other sections of the gospels confirm that John had priestly concerns. He engaged in the rituals of baptism, fasting, and prayer (:33; 11:1). 11

Yet John comes on the scene as more than simply a rural . He appears in the wilderness of Judea as a radically alienated person. In addition to the wilderness habitation itself, his alienation is indicated not least by his food and clothing: “Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, and had a leather girdle around his waist, and ate locusts and wild honey” (Mark 1:6). This asceticism became proverbial: “For John came neither eating nor drinking” (Matt 11:18). Most of all, he scathingly attacked the Jerusalem establishment for its impiety and injustice (Matt 3:7–10). How can we account for John’s -like separation from the normal securities and meanings of traditional life? First, John’s general cultural setting is significant. There was a long-standing tradition of alienation among the prophets of ancient Israel. Jeremiah has already come to mind: “I did not sit in the company of merrymakers, nor did I rejoice; I sat alone” (Jer 15:17). Then, in exilic and postexilic Judaism various groups of alienated priests appear on the scene. P. D. Hanson sees the “dawn of apocalyptic” taking place among groups of alienated visionary priests as early as the 6th–5th centuries B.C.E. (1975: 209–28, 280–86, 389–401). Moreover, in the middle of the 2d century B.C.E. there was a sharp revulsion against the Maccabees which nourished, among others, the Qumran community, a group that consisted largely of lower rural priests alienated from the aristocratic urban priests of Jerusalem (Cross 1958: 95–119; 1973: 332–42). Among the important statements from the Dead Sea Scrolls which express this rift is the following interpretation of Hab 2:8a (“Because you have plundered many nations, all the remnant of the people shall plunder you.”): “This refers to the final priests of Jerusalem who will amass for themselves wealth and gain by plundering the people” (1QpHab 2:8; Gaster 1964: 249). The case of Qumran is especially significant because John was like the people of Qumran in many respects; he may even have been a member of that group or a similar group (Davies 1983; Betz 1985). Josephus supports this statement by his references to the great social and economic gulf that existed between the aristocratic priests and the large mass of lower clergy that developed just before the great revolt in the 60s C.E. There now was enkindled mutual enmity and class warfare between the high priests, on the one hand, and the priests and leaders of the populace of Jerusalem, on the other. Each of the factions formed and collected for itself a band of the most reckless revolutionaries and acted as their leader. And when they clashed, they used abusive language and pelted each other with stones … Such was the shamelessness and effrontery which possessed the high priests that they actually were so brazen as to send slaves to the threshing floors to receive the tithes that were due to the priests, with the result that the poorer priests starved to death (Ant 20.8.8 §180–81; also 20.9.2 §205–7; further details in Stern 1976: 561–700). More broadly-based alienation is indicated by the first revolt of the Jews against the Romans upon the death of in 4 B.C.E. (JW 2.1.1–6.2 §1–92; Ant 17.9.1– 11.3 §206–314; Farmer 1958; Horsley and Hanson 1985: 111–17). 12

A striking confirmation of the luxury of the Jerusalem (probably priestly) aristocracy has come to light in the recent excavations in the “Jewish Quarter of the Old City” of Jerusalem (Avigad 1976: 1.23–35). In this “fashionable and wealthy residential section overlooking the Holy Temple” a Herodian house of 2,000 square feet was unearthed, as well as a larger one the archaeologists dubbed “The Mansion.” On a stone weight found in “The Mansion” was inscribed “Bar Kathros,” the name of one of four priestly families mentioned in the (Pesaḥ 57a) as exploiting the people and beating them with rods. “Our Bar Kathros was probably of this family,” conjectures Avigad (1976: 29; see also 1980). These houses with their varied contents demonstrate the luxury of the aristocracy in Jerusalem just before the time of John the Baptist. Thus John was surrounded by a pervasive climate of alienation; one scholar (Ford 1976) argues that this probably reached into his own family. It was from this urban setting that John retreated to the wilderness, a location of profound symbolic significance as the place of death, purification and rebirth (Hollenbach 1974; W. D. Davies 1974: 75–104). These meanings are reflected at Qumran, where those who joined the community separated themselves from the wicked “to the end that they may indeed ‘go into the wilderness to prepare the way,’i.e., do what Scripture enjoins when it says, ‘Prepare in the wilderness the way … make straight in the desert a highway for our God’ [Isa. 40:3]” (1QS 8:12–16; Gaster 1964: 64). That going into the wilderness sometimes had even messianic significance is indicated by Matt 24:26a: “So, if they say to you, ‘Lo, he [the Messiah] is in the wilderness,’do not go out.” This is as far as a quest for the origin of John can take us. We may conclude, despite the paucity of particulars about John before his public appearance, that he came from a family of radicalized rural priests. This direction was most likely the result of the alienation the lower rural generally felt toward the Jerusalem aristocracy. At some point John left his family and took up a prophetic desert existence. (Zech 13:4 shows that John adopted clothing of a type worn by other alienated prophets, not only Elijah [as in 2 Kgs 1:8].) Finally he appeared in public as an apocalyptic prophet. 2. John’s Prophetic Mission. A basic problem in determining the meaning of John’s prophetic-baptizing mission is the question of the audience to which his various proclamations and judgments are addressed. Scholars often make no distinctions in this respect. Scobie (1964: 62–73) is typical when he speaks vaguely of “people” or of the “wicked” in contrast to the “righteous” without inquiring into the socioeconomic class structure of Palestine. Kraeling (1951: 49–59) is of the exceptional opinion that the “brood of vipers” saying was addressed to the priestly aristocracy. Horsley and Hanson (1985: 177–80) carry this further: there is evidence of “class conflict in John’s message” in that he announces “God’s imminent overthrow of the established order as headed by the sacerdotal aristocracy and Herod Antipas.” Who was John’s first audience? It may be that he never preached a general message to the nation at large. If he did, it is now difficult to determine what the message was. What would it mean for him to preach such a general message anyway? Preaching to the 13 nation “as a whole” (Kraeling 1951: 49) is a vague notion hard to pin down. Of course his particular proclamations undoubtedly had import for the Jewish people at large, and perhaps even for the Diaspora; but he, like at Bethel and other OT prophets in their particular places, must have spoken specific messages at specific times and places to specific groups. Even if we accept Mark’s statement that “all the country of Judea and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him” (1:5), nevertheless, before that occurred, John must have preached something to someone that attracted other people’s attention. a. John’s Opening Salvo. (1) His Audience. If John was an alienated rural priest who was compelled to take up the role of an apocalyptic prophet, then it is reasonable to assume that his first and major proclamation was an attack on the powerful Jerusalem establishment (Matt 3:7) and other associated powerful social groups (:10–14). We have good indirect evidence for this, while we have no evidence at all for his preaching to the powerless. We cannot use Matt 21:32 as evidence because it is another case of Matthew making John like Jesus (21:31). John, like other oracular prophets, may have been a “spokesperson for the common people” (Horsley and Hanson 1985: 179), but this is very different from the idea that he had a “ministry to the poor” (Wink 1968: 20). Rather, his message of judgment was to the powerful, as :30 indicates: “Pharisees and lawyers.” (2) His Message. What was John’s message to these powerful ones? It can be inferred only from what he says to those who come to him for baptism, for we do not have accounts of any of his words spoken to persons in other settings except his attack on Herod Antipas (:17–18; Luke 3:19). Considering the OT prophetic tradition, John’s message must have been that the wrath of God was coming on them as faithless (Matt 3:7). Only if they repented of their apostasy, gave up their presumption (Matt 3:9), and instead did works fit for repentance (Matt 3:8), both works of ritual purification (John 3:25; Dodd 1963: 281; Kysar 1975: 63) and works of social justice (Luke 3:10–14), would they escape God’s wrath. Apocalyptic emphasis on God’s imminent intervention against them must also have been strong (Matt 3:10). Most distinctive was John’s call for the repentant ones to come to the Jordan to be baptized as an action symbolic of their return to God. The fact that he was labelled “the baptizer” indicates the emphasis he must have put on this ritual. Both Mark (1:4) and Luke (3:3) say that he preached “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins,” and this fits his initial message. That was the meaning of his baptism as he proclaimed it to the powerful apostate. However, at the time that he actually baptized some of them, he added a further component to his ritual: it anticipated the coming of one who would bring a radical purification to the repentant ones (Luke 3:16–17). This means that we have no evidence that John initially proclaimed the coming of a messianic figure, let alone the kingdom of God. It is doubtful that John preached about the one to come except to the repentant individuals who came for baptism. He seems not to have mentioned the coming one even to the unrepentant ones who desired baptism (Matt 3:7–10). Moreover, it is also likely that John’s ethical preaching (Luke 3:10–14) 14 was addressed only to persons who actually came to him for baptism. In other words, John’s opening salvo was a stark message of doom familiar from portions of the OT prophets, except that he added the possibility of escape through the baptism of repentance. (3) His Location. If this was John’s message, where did he deliver it? It is almost impossible to believe that he was “preaching” (it) in the wilderness of Judea” alone (Matt 3:1). Luke (3:2–3) says only that the “word of God came to John … in the wilderness” but that he called for people to be baptized in “all the region about the Jordan.” In this respect Luke differs from Mark and Matthew who say that people from Judea, Jerusalem (Mark, Matthew), and the region of the Jordan (Matthew) went out to John. While the gospels (especially Luke) tend to generalize, one wonders whether all the people who came from as far away as Jerusalem and beyond (Jesus evidently came all the way from Galilee!) responded to hearsay reports alone. Is it not more probable that John had previously preached his message in populated places, in the villages and cities, even in Jerusalem itself? Kraeling (1951: 64) raises this issue and suggests that John went to the highways to preach, while W. R. Brownlee (1957: 36) suggested that John “found places in the wilderness where he could meet people” in villages and towns. It would be in such places that he could address directly those for whom his message was intended. That he traveled about considerably is supported by the claim that he went as far away from Judea as Aenon-at-Salim, which is at least 30, if not 70 kilometers N of the Dead Sea and Jerusalem (John 3:23; Brown John AB, 151). This coheres with what we know about prophets in general, namely, they went to the people to whom their messages applied. Why don’t we hear more about John’s travels? Because the gospel writers weren’t interested in that sort of thing. They don’t tell us very much about John at all, and while they tell us a about Jesus, we learn little from them about his movements. Consider the following: if not for the gospel of John we would never know that John went as far N as Aenon-at-Salim, or that Jesus baptized and had disciples while John was still carrying on his own public mission. Besides all this the gospels are interested not in John’s mission itself, but rather in proving that John “appeared in the wilderness” as the forerunner of Jesus in fulfillment of Isa 40:3 (Mark 1:2–4). We are left then with the following picture: John the Baptizer originates as a wilderness character who emerges as a prophet in populated places, proclaiming to powerful sinners a prophetic-apocalyptic message of imminent doom on them because of their impurity and injustice, and calling upon them to come to the Jordan and be baptized as a sign of their repentance and a pledge of their renewed faithfulness to God. b. John’s Message to Those Coming for Baptism. In the gospel accounts all of John’s words (except the word against Antipas) are spoken to persons seeking baptism. These words show that John was hostile to those whom he judged to have bad faith, while he was friendly to those who were truly repentant. To the former he repeated threats and warnings and perhaps added new ones, while to the latter he gave hope for further 15 dramatic renewal of their lives as well as ethical guidance relevant to their particular vocations. (1) To the Unrepentant Powerful. (a) The Priestly Aristocracy in Jerusalem. That Matthew (3:7–10) and Luke (3:7–9) differ with regard to John’s audience is of little consequence in determining its identity since the “brood of vipers” speech itself shows the audience’s character clearly enough. This speech is his “most contemptuous saying” (Kraeling 1951: 49), but except for the Antipas saying, it is his only thoroughly negative one. Indeed, all of his other sayings are wholly positive, spoken to repentant sinners. To say that “John concentrated by far the greater part of his attention on stern warnings of future punishment …” (Scobie 1964: 62) is at best misleading. The “brood of vipers” saying is consistent with numerous doom sayings that OT prophets commonly spoke against the unrepentant powerful of the nation, a likeness apparent first in the epithet, for to accuse someone of being a viper was “to castigate him as evil in his inmost being” (Kraeling 1951: 48). Thus, and second, the following query must be bitter and sarcastic irony, especially since the verb “show”(hypodeiknymi) is normally used for special or divine (Acts 9:16). Third, the sarcasm is occasioned by the fact that the addressees are hypocrites in that they do not practice deeds to match their sham repentance (Luke 3:8a) and by the fact of their arrogant and complacent presumption about their standing with God (3:8b). John then rounds off his castigation with the warning, doubtless repeated from earlier occasions, that in “the coming wrath” which is already appearing (3:9a) these arrogant hypocrites will be destroyed (3:9). It is important to note that John does not say anything here about repentant ones escaping the coming doom. It needs to be emphasized that in this saying he pronounces doom for a specific group of unrepentant persons because the specificity of the particular group he is addressing makes superfluous a reference to repentant ones. The failure to notice the particularity of John’s message to specific groups has caused the unwarranted generalizing of his message. Kraeling (1951: 49) is thus correct that this denunciation is “too bitter to be addressed to the nation as a whole.” There is only one group that it fits well and that is the ruling priestly aristocracy in Jerusalem, which perpetrated the most heinous social injustices. If the view just adumbrated is accepted, an interesting question naturally arises: why did those aristocrats come at all to be baptized, especially since they were apparently insincere? Did they come simply to observe or even to interrogate John? John 1:19–25 supports this view, and Josephus (Ant 15.10.4 §365–69) shows that political leaders such as Herod the Great spied on various persons and groups. Or did John act ironically, as if they came to be baptized, in order to shame them further? Maybe the statement that they were coming for baptism is erroneous. But John’s opening question could mean at least that the addressees were coming with some kind of positive intentions if not for baptism itself. Or perhaps, upon encountering the audacious prophet again in person, some of these authorities thought it wise to make a kind of Pascalian wager and so sought 16 baptism without concern about the “good fruit” it presupposed, simply to be on the safe side. ( later suggested a similar wager to the Jerusalem authorities, Acts 5:33– 39.) Probably this question cannot be answered. But it seems certain that in John’s mind his addressees were another group of complacent authorities who were perpetrating injustice. These authorities in particular have it in their power to “bear fruits” of piety and justice, and John directs his harshest words (as far as we know) to those who would make a charade of even the sacred ritual of baptism. There is no evidence that any of these most powerful ones responded positively to John’s preaching, and one passage appears to indicate that they did not (Matt 21:32a: “For John came to you [“chief priests and elders,” 21:23a] in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him”). (b) Herod Antipas. In connection with John’s attack on the unrepentant powerful who came to him, it is appropriate to include his denunciation of Herod Antipas, even though we have no record that the latter ever came to him for baptism or for any other purpose. Antipas is the only named individual who is said to have been denounced by John. Despite the fact that gospel materials about John and Antipas have been the subject of legendary elaboration, there is good reason to accept the historicity of John’s attack on Antipas, as both Kraeling (1951: 83–88) and Scobie (1964: 179–86) do. This denunciation is especially remarkable because Antipas was a political figure of some stature. John’s attack and the revolutionary potential of his movement were apparently what caused Antipas to arrest and execute him. What caused John to denounce Antipas? An attempt has been made above to explain his attack on the Jerusalem authorities. Can this attack on Antipas also be explained? Was there some occasion in John’s career that made it appropriate for him to express such a negative judgment? Was it made at a face to face meeting either when Antipas sought out John or when John sought out Antipas in his palace in Tiberias or elsewhere? A comparison of three related texts makes the following picture plausible: at a later time, when Jesus had gained some notoriety, which included having crowds follow him and sending his disciples out on a preaching mission, Jesus looked like John to Antipas (Mark 6:14–16) and Antipas became intent on arresting and killing him (Luke 13:31– 33). But Jesus left his territory and frustrated this intention. This analogy between Jesus’ movement and John’s is confirmed by Josephus in that he also attributes Antipas’ attention to John to the fact that he was leading a mass movement that was seen by Antipas as a political threat (Ant 18.5.2 §118). It is interesting to notice that when Jesus was warned about Antipas’ evil intention, he let loose against him one of the most severe verbal attacks recorded of Jesus. He called Antipas a “fox” (a cunning destroyer) (Luke 13:32). Is it not likely that when John became aware of Antipas’ interest in him, he similarly let loose a verbal attack on him? This kind of an occasion is all the more likely when it is considered that John had no vocational or social connection with Antipas as he had with the Jerusalem aristocracy. If this suggestion has merit, it also indicates something of the range as well as the size of John’s movement; it must have 17 spread far beyond Judea into Antipas’ territory. It is significant in this connection also that John was not liquidated by the Jerusalem authorities as was Jesus but by the ruler of Galilee and Perea. Whatever may have been the occasion for John’s attack it needs to be stressed that his attack had legal, moral, and political significance. It probably was much more wide ranging than simply a criticism of Antipas’ marriage. Luke 3:19 has John reprove him also “for all the evil things that Herod had done.” The marriage was a legal issue because it contravened Lev 20:21: “If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is impurity”; this aspect is stressed in the gospels. It was a moral issue because the divorce shamed Antipas’ first wife, the Nabatean king Aretas’ daughter, whom Antipas put away in order to marry Herodias; this aspect is found neither in the gospels nor in Josephus. Finally, it had political significance because it threatened to further destabilize an already unstable political situation caused by the divorce of king Aretas’ daughter, whom he had originally married for political reasons. As a matter of fact, this issue seems to have been a prominent cause of the later war (in 36 C.E.) between Aretas and Antipas in which Herod was defeated (and which is the context of Josephus’ story of John’s arrest and liquidation [Ant 18.5.1 §109–15]). In view of these many factors the conclusion is likely that John’s criticism was a massive attack on the integrity of Antipas as a person and as a ruler. That is why Antipas had him eliminated but did not destroy Jesus, who escaped for the moment. Thus, the view of those scholars who seek to prove “that John’s Messianic preaching must have been completely non-political” (Scobie 1964: 184) must be rejected. In the first place, this part of John’s preaching is not messianic. In the second place, it is historically inappropriate to separate so sharply John’s “religious” from his “political” message. While it is possible to distinguish politics from , especially for 20th century people, nevertheless, at no time is it possible to separate them, and in 1st century Palestine, as social scientists have shown, it would not be possible even to distinguish them (Carney 1975; Malina 1986b). Thus only one conclusion is possible, namely, that John was calling on Antipas to change himself, his politics, and his policies. He must have also called on him and the Jerusalem authorities to practice piety and justice. See also HEROD ANTIPAS. (2) To the Repentant Powerful. John the Baptist addressed two different kinds of words to the truly repentant powerful who came to be baptized. Again, chronology is uncertain but it is logical to examine them in the order that follows. (a) The Second Baptism. If we are to interpret this section (Luke 3:16b–17; Matt 3:11– 12; Mark 1:7–8) adequately, it is essential to observe two factors in the texts not usually taken into account. First, John addresses in this particular case those whom he is in the process of baptizing. He is not speaking to others, such as those who are seeking baptism in bad faith, let alone to people in general. Rather, he is speaking only to those who are seeking baptism in good faith. His first words, “I baptize you with water” (Matt 3:11a; Luke 3:16a) have almost the character of a baptismal formula and can be seen as 18 an analogue of the Christian formula, “I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). He tells those he is baptizing that their present baptism is to be succeeded by a second and much greater baptism performed by a much greater person than he. Second, John’s emphasis falls not on the fact that one mightier than he is coming, but rather on the fact that his baptism will be succeeded by another, greater baptism. By making the announcement during the very act of baptizing, John radically depreciates his own rite. His baptism will be superceded by a second baptism because the latter will effect a result that John’s baptism is incapable of performing. He says in effect: “There is one coming after me who is mightier than I because he has to do a mightier deed than I, namely, baptize with Holy Spirit and fire.” The second baptism, thus, is the really important one, while his first baptism is but a preliminary to it. To be sure, the self- depreciation of John the Baptist in the gospel of John is exaggerated and related to the ministry of Jesus, but as Dodd (1963: 256–59) argues, apart from that it is essentially historical. John understood his work to be inadequate compared to what he evidently saw that needed to be done. This understanding of second baptism as John the Baptist expressed it was very soon supplanted by the early Christians’ identification of the “coming one” as Jesus. The process can be seen in Paul’s first sermon in Acts (13:16–47), where John’s baptism is no longer connected to the coming one’s baptism (Acts 13:24–25). In fact, baptism is not even mentioned in connection with the coming one, and even the announcement of his coming is separated from John’s baptism: “Before his [Jesus’ ] coming John had preached a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John was finishing his course, he said, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. No, but after me one is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie’ ” (Acts 13:24–25). This separation of John’s baptism from the second baptism of the coming one has prevailed in Christian thought and even in modern scholarship up to the present time. What John meant by his baptismal statement must be determined in the light of these two factors. The focus thus should be not on identifying the character of some “coming one” but on the contrast between John’s water baptism and another’s “holy spirit and fire” baptism. Those who focus on the coming one as a “transcendent” messiah (Kraeling 1951: 63; Scobie 1964: 66) go beyond the evidence. The fluidity of messianic ideas in John’s day is ignored as well (de Jonge 1966; IDBSup, 588–91; see also MESSIAH). What John meant by his water baptism is clear enough even without referring to the Christian summaries of it (“a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins”), for his speech to the unrepentant powerful strongly implies that it had to do with repentance and commitment to new acts of righteousness which are the fruits of repentance (Matt 3:8). The important and more problematic matters are determining the original words describing the second baptism and establishing their meaning. The phrase “Holy Spirit and fire” has received most scholarly attention. What is its meaning? Since John is addressing repentant sinners coming for baptism, they are doing a positive act to which 19 one would expect him to respond positively. Just as he responded negatively to those who came for baptism in bad faith, so one would expect him to respond positively to those who came in good faith. Hence, “Holy Spirit and fire” must have a positive meaning. Negative meanings involving judgment and destruction can be eliminated from consideration so the question that remains is, What positive meaning is intended? A significant possibility is purification. Purification is linked with an anticipated messenger in Mal 3:1–3: “the messenger of the in whom you delight, behold, he is coming … For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fuller’s soap; he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of and refine them like gold and silver …” The Rule of the Community from Qumran proclaims that at the time of God’s visitation he will “purge all the acts of man in the crucible of his truth, and refine for Himself all the fabric of man, destroying every spirit of perversity from within his flesh and cleansing him by the holy spirit from all the effects of wickedness. Like waters of purification He will sprinkle upon him the spirit of truth, to cleanse him of all the abominations of falsehood and of all pollution through the spirit of filth …” (1QS 4:20, 21; Gaster 1964: 53). Notice especially the analogy between “waters of purification” and cleansing by the “holy spirit” and the “spirit of truth.” Note also Ezek 36:25–26: “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses … A new heart I will give you and a new spirit I will put within you …” Fire is a traditional symbol of judgmental destruction. The prophet (3:18–19— Eng 3:18–4:1) envisions the day when God acts as “burning like an oven” and destroying the arrogant and evildoers. A strikingly vivid image from one Qumran hymn foresees the “rivers of Belial” (1QH 3:28) overflowing “like a fire consuming all …” (1QH 3:29). But destruction is not the only meaning of fire imagery, and cannot be its meaning in John the Baptist’s preaching. That John was particularly interested in purification coheres with his priestly background and also with his interest in religious- ascetic practices, such as fasting and prayer (Luke 5:33; 11:1; Acts 14:23; Gospel of Thomas 104). Hence, it may be concluded that John told those he was baptizing that his baptism of repentance would be followed soon by a second, radical cleansing of them from all evil. In this regard John is in full accord with the OT prophetic emphasis on the need for radical renewal, a perspective seen, for example, in the call for a by (1–3) and Jeremiah (31). There is one major problem with this line of interpretation. Luke 3:17 appears not to fit the meaning we argue for 3:16. The imagery of Luke 3:17 seems to represent the separation of the righteous from the wicked in a metaphor of winnowing; grain is separated from chaff, which is burned with “unquenchable fire.” The analogy with purification is strong: purification involves the removal of impurity from a valued substance; so winnowing removes the impurity, the chaff, from the valued grain. However Luke 3:17 is interpreted, 3:16 must be taken to mean that John looked for an eschatological purification of his repentant baptized ones. 20

John the Baptist’s message can be summarized thus: Now is the time of repentance in view of the imminent execution of God’s wrath on unrepentant powerful sinners. Those that do not repent will be destroyed by God’s wrath, while those who do will receive an additional second baptism greater than John’s that will bestow on them a final and perfect purification. In the meantime, they are to do ritual and moral acts that befit their repentance and that anticipate the final purification. (b) Ethical Criticism and Obligation. Among those who came to be baptized by John were at least three distinct social or vocational groups. There seems to be no good reason to doubt the historical authenticity of John’s baptism of persons from these groups even though we have no other supporting evidence except Luke 7:29 and Matt 21:32. However, we cannot accept as historical Luke’s statement (3:10) that “multitudes asked” John, “What then shall we do?” For not only is “multitudes” a favorite Lukan editorial term (see 3:7), but it does not appropriately describe the specific groups mentioned, namely the tax collectors and soldiers. Therefore, the likely addressees must be deduced from John’s answer; the Baptist’s response targets those who have more than the minimum of food and clothing, the relatively wealthy. The questions asked of John indicate that the relatively wealthy have responded positively to his message. Part of that response would be their baptism and further instruction. John addresses appropriately specific demands to each group. The relatively wealthy are to share their clothing and food with the destitute. Tax collectors are not to extort but are to follow the exact demands of their superiors. And soldiers are to quit taking advantage of their possession of the force of arms and their social position (which gave them judicial advantage) in order to rob others; and they should not agitate for salary increases. Several things are noteworthy about John’s ethical criticism, but the most important is that every one of these three cases of criticism has to do with economic matters. Each case assumes the distinction between a relatively wealthy class and a very poor class that suffers oppression by the wealthy. In line with the OT prophets, John asks the oppressors, as part of their baptism of repentance, to cease their oppression of the poor who are powerless against them. Their changed practices will constitute “fruits that befit repentance.” (i) Tax Collectors. The case of the tax collectors is particularly clear and helps in understanding the other cases. There were a variety of ways in which the local Jewish authorities as well as the Romans extracted money from the populace. Stern (1976: 330– 36) lists no less than five Roman forms alone: poll-tax (census tax), agricultural tax, customs, confiscation (especially of Temple funds), and the angria, a type of corvée. In addition to these Roman taxes, there were the Jewish religious taxes, the Temple tax and the tithes. See also CENSUS, ROMAN; TAX COLLECTOR. But it was in connection with collecting customs on transported goods and various other government revenues that the specific kind of official referred to in Luke 3:12 figures, for the collection of such duties was farmed out to local Jews by the Romans. There was a hierarchy of such officials. , for example (:1–9), was the “head of a 21 society of publicans” (Stern 1974: 333) who were subordinate to him. Tax collectors (called publicans) could grow rich through collecting “more than [was] appointed” them (Luke 3:12), i.e., more than they had contracted with and paid their superior for. Zacchaeus, for example, had paid some official (probably a Roman) for his office, which gave him tax collecting privileges at Jericho. He in turn was paid by others for the privilege of collecting certain of those taxes. At each of these levels a tax collector could earn his own livelihood and usually also gain his relative wealth by collecting more than he paid for his office (Herrenbruck 1981; Oakman 1986). That some publicans grew very rich is seen in the case of Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus could give away half his income and restore fourfold any fraudulent acquisitions and still be a rich man. In 66 C.E. at Caesarea, “the Jewish notables, with John the tax collector … offered Florus eight talents of silver” as a bribe in order to get him to stop undesirable building activities next to the synagogue (JW 2.14.4 §284–88). The point is that publicans were not only quislings contaminated by contact with Gentiles, and sometimes robbers, but were also part of the wealthy oppressing establishment. For such persons to heed John’s call to repentance with its accompanying demand of good works would entail a total rejection of their former way of life with its class involvement and class consciousness. When John the Baptist demanded that they should not collect funds beyond what they had contracted for, he was striking at the root of the tax-farming system. That this was the case, and the possibility that John had repentant tax-collectors among his followers as well as numbers of poor tax-payers who had felt their oppression and were glad to hear John denounce the oppressive system, may have been the major reason that Antipas finally took notice of John. Note that upon the death of Herod the Great, the requests made of the new ruler, Archelaus, are the following: “that he should lighten the yearly payments,” that he “release … the prisoners,” and that he remove the taxes “levied upon public purchases and sale” that “had been ruthlessly exacted” (Ant 17.8.4 204–5). It is also generally accepted that taxes were a contributing factor in causing the Great War of 66–70 C.E. (Rhoads 1976: 80– 81). (ii) Soldiers. There is a connection between tax collectors and soldiers in the sense that people like Zacchaeus and , as indicated above, could “avail themselves of the assistance of military forces” (Stern 1974: 333; Gibson 1981). Alliances between tax collectors and the military were common in ancient societies. Kautsky (1982) has shown that the two main functions of ancient aristocratic governments were taxation and warfare. The point is that they, like all military and police forces, served the needs of those who ruled. They may have been direct supporters of the tax collectors, as the Greek phrase kai hymeis “and we” (Luke 3:14) suggests. Or they could have been supporters of the Jerusalem establishment. In the course of military service soldiers might commit various deeds of oppression, motivated in part by their aspiration to rise above the mediocrity of their social situation compared with those whom they served. 22

Upon these soldiers John lays radical ethical demands. If the soldiers heeded these demands, just as in the case of the tax-collectors, it would have meant a radical revision of their private conduct, and might also have challenged the very foundations of the social order. For example, John asked them not to request a raise in pay (suggesting personal ) because their wages were already being taken out of the hides of the powerless poor. In addition, soldiers attempting to implement John the Baptist’s reforms risked being guilty of insubordination, because they might have had to disobey the orders of superiors to enforce their demands against the populace, who had limited means to resist official predation. (iii) The Relatively Wealthy. In the case of the first group whom John the Baptist addresses (tax collectors), economic matters are at the forefront and the distinction between the destitute and the relatively wealthy is prominent. The very wealthy were not necessarily directly enjoined. John asks the relatively wealthy to share their moderate wealth with the destitute. If we connect the image of social stratification indicated by John’s words with the fact that at his time Palestine was relatively prosperous compared to the period just after Herod’s death and just before the great revolt, we arrive at a significant observation regarding the context of John the Baptist’s ethical criticism. Like the period of Jeroboam II in which Amos prophesied (ca. 750 B.C.E.), the Herodian era was a period characterized by relative prosperity along with “the impoverishment of the masses” (Stern 1976: 577; see further chaps. 11–12, esp. pp. 691–92). In other words, it was a classic case of social and economic oppression and John puts the burden of justice directly on the bureaucracy and indirectly on their superiors, the ruling elite. (iv) Social Justice. In every case of John’s ethical criticism he strikes at structural injustice. He directly addresses the relatively privileged and powerful groups in society who perpetrate injustices. It is notable in this connection that he does not ask those who are repenting to fast and pray. Evidently, these specifically religious practices were reserved for his more immediate followers. Presumably John’s assumption is that these people will return to society and play their normal vocational roles. Thus, John’s baptism is nowhere exclusively connected with fasting and prayer but is directly connected with social justice. He asked the baptized to forsake the normal socially accepted ways of acting and living and to take up new ways. In this sense, then, it is necessary to call John the Baptist a social rebel (Hobsbawn 1971; Kautsky 1982). John is a rebel insofar as he leads a movement which sharply attacks the legitimacy of the current social structures. His movement has not yet spilled over into overt disruption of society (he has not yet become an “action prophet”), though it is clear that his movement has that potential (and Antipas apparently saw it that way); but he certainly is fomenting social unrest. And for him the restructuring of society begins not with the “common people,” nor with the very wealthy, but with the relatively privileged bureaucratic groups who have some power to change affairs. Evidently at John’s time there were at least a few members of these classes who still had some sensitivity to injustice and were 23 vulnerable to his eschatological-apocalyptic message. While undoubtedly some of his following, maybe even most of them, were the destitute masses, it remains true that not one word in the NT is addressed to them. John the Baptist’s criticism of the powerful, of course, implies concern for the weak. Like the classical prophets he addresses only those responsible for and likely to change the sorry state of affairs reigning in his society. Thus it is misleading to say “that John’s converts were drawn from the common people” (Manson 1949: 39), and it is pertinent to observe that “it is prosperity, not poverty, that causes social criticism and, ultimately, revolution” (Schneidau 1976: 38). C. Summary The preceding analysis seems to justify the following picture of John the Baptist’s career. Having suffered the outrages perpetrated on the lower country clergy by the urban priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem, John the Baptist also suffered profound alienation from the status quo and left society for the real and spiritual wilderness of Judea. Perhaps he was at Qumran or some such place for a while. Then there explodes in him and from him a radical prophetic-apocalyptic that brings him back to attack society at its heart, its powerful ones. He proclaims an imminent day of wrath for the unrepentant perpetrators of impiety and injustice unless they are baptized in repentance and begin to do deeds of justice that ultimately entail the radical revision of the social system of his day. As might be expected, most of the powerful respond to him negatively and eventually facilitate his liquidation. Surprisingly enough, however, some of them responded positively. Sensing perhaps that he has asked the impossible of them, as he baptizes them he promises that they will soon be baptized in a new way by a greater one who will be able to cleanse them of evil in radical eschatological fashion. With this cleansing they will be up to following the ethical standards that he has demanded of them. Meanwhile, they are to return to their former social roles and begin to practice the new vision of social justice they have gotten from him. Some of them, however, stay with him, practicing forms of piety such as fasting and prayer that were seen perhaps to anticipate that final cleansing. These disciples formed a distinct group, one of many such groups that sprang up at that time. This group, however, was distinguished from others by its unique prophetic-social vision and practices, at least as long as it remained under the inspiration of its founder, John the Baptist. Thus, John the Baptist fits the model of an oracular prophet very well, with the proviso that he adds uniquely to that model his practices of baptism, fasting, and prayer. Bibliography Avigad, N. 1976. How the Wealthy Lived in Herodian Jerusalem. BARev 2/ 4: 23–35. Badia, L. F. 1980. The Qumran Baptism and John the Baptist’s Baptism. Lanham, MD. Bammel, E. 1971–72. John the Baptist in Early Christian Tradition. NTS 18: 95–128. Betz, O. 1985. Die Bedeutung der Qumran-schriften für die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments. BK 40: 54–64. 24

Böcher, O. 1979. Lukas und Johannes der Täufer. Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 4: 27–44. Boring, M. E. 1985. Criteria of Authenticity: The Lucan as a Test Case. Forum 1: 3–38. Brown, R. E. 1977. The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City, NY. Brownlee, W. H. 1957. John the Baptist in the Light of Ancient Scrolls. Pp. 33–53 in The Scrolls and the , ed. K. Stendahl. New York. Carney, T. F. 1975. The Shape of the Past: Models and Antiquity. Lawrence, KS. Cross, F. M. 1958. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. Garden City, NY. ———. 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, MA. Davies, S. L. 1983. John the Baptist and Essene Kashruth. NTS 29: 569–71. Davies, W. D. 1974. The Gospel and the Land. Berkeley. Dodd, C. H. 1963. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge. Farmer, W. R. 1958. Judas, Simon, and Athronges. NTS 4: 147–55. Fleddermann, H. 1984. John and the Coming One (Matt 3:11–12/ Luke 3:16–17). SBLSP pp. 377–84. Ford, J. M. 1976. Zealotism and the Lukan Infancy Narratives. NovT 18: 280–92. Gaster, T. H. 1964. The Dead Sea Scriptures. Rev. ed. Garden City, NY. Gibson, J. 1981. Hai Telonai kai hai Pornai. JTS 32: 429–33. Hanson, P. D. 1975. The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Philadelphia. Herrenbrück, F. 1981. Wer waren die “Zöllner”? ZNW 72: 178–94. Hobsbawn, E. J. 1971. Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Manchester. ———. 1973. “Peasants and Politics.”Journal of Peasant Studies 1: 3–22. Hollenbach, P. 1974. The Meaning of Desert Symbolism for Civilization in Ancient Israel. Iowa State Journal of Research 49: 169–79. ———. 1979. Social Aspects of John the Baptizer’s Preaching Mission in the Context of Palestinian Judaism. ANRW 2/19/2: 850–75. ———. 1982. The Conversion of Jesus: From Jesus the Baptizer to Jesus the Healer. ANRW 2/25/1: 196–219. ———. 1983. Recent Studies and the Social Sciences. SBLSP pp. 61– 78. Horsley, R. A. 1984. Popular Messianic Movements around the Time of Jesus. CBQ 46: 471–95. ———. 1985. “Like One of the Prophets of Old”: “Two Types of Popular Prophets at the Time of Jesus. CBQ 47: 435–63. Horsley, R., and Hanson, J. 1985. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs. New York. Jonge, M. de. 1966. The Use of the Word ‘Anointed’in the Time of Jesus. NovT 8: 132– 48. Kautsky, J. H. 1982. The Politics of Aristocratic Empires. Chapel Hill, NC. 25

Kraeling, C. H. 1951. John the Baptist. New York. Kysar, R. 1975. The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel. Minneapolis. Lindeskog, G. 1983. Johannes der Täufer: Einige Randbemerkungen zum heutigen Stand der Forschung. ASTI 12: 55–83. Malina, B. 1981. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta. ———. 1983. The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation. Pp. 11–25 in The and Liberation, ed. N. K. Gottwald. Maryknoll, NY. Repr. Int 36 (1982): 229–42. ———. 1986a. Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta. ———. 1986b. “Religion” in the World of Paul. BTB 16: 92–101. Manson, T. W. 1949. The Sayings of Jesus. London. Mazar, B. 1980. Excavations Near Temple Mount Reveal Splendors of Herodian Jerusalem. BARev 6: 44–59. Meier, J. P. 1980. John the Baptist in Matthew’s Gospel. JBL 99: 383–405. Merklein, H. 1981. Die Umkehrpredigt bei Johannes dem Täufer und Jesus von Nazaret. BZ 25: 29–46. Nepper-Christensen, P. 1985. Die Taufe im Matthäusevangelium in Lichte der Traditionen über Johannes der Täufer. NTS 31: 189–207. Nodet, E. 1985. Jésus et Jean-Baptiste selon Josèphe. RB 92: 321–48; 497–524. Oakman, D. 1986. Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day. Lewiston, NY. Parker, P. 1981. Jesus, John the Baptist, and the Herods. PRS 8: 4–11. Reumann, J. 1972. The Quest for the Historical Baptist. Pp. 181–99 in Understanding The Sacred Text, ed. J. Reumann. Valley Forge, PA. Rhoads, D. M. 1976. Israel in Revolution, 6–74 C.E. Philadelphia. Schneidau, H. 1976. Sacred Discontent. Baton Rouge, LA. Scobie, C. H. H. 1964. John the Baptist. Philadelphia. Smith, D. 1982. Jewish Proselyte Baptism and the Baptism of John. ResQ 25: 13–32. Stern, M. 1974. The Province of Judaea. Vol. 1, pp. 308–76 in The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern. CRINT. Assen and Philadelphia. ———. 1976. Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and other Classes. Vol. 2, pp. 561–630 in The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern. CRINT. Assen and Philadelphia. Wink, W. 1968. John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. SNTSMS 7. Cambridge. 1 PAUL W. HOLLENBACH

1 Hollenbach, P. W. (1992). John the Baptist. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), . Vol. 3: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (D. N. Freedman, Ed.) (887–899). New York: Doubleday. 26

John the Baptist. Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately A.D. 29, while Jesus was still . Infancy and Boyhood. Luke is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah (1:5), and Elizabeth, a daughter of (1:5b). Both parents were righteous before God, following all the commandments closely (1:6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (1:8–13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (1:13–17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (Jer 1:5). There existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a “kinswoman” of Mary (1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, but may only mean being from the same tribe. John’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that the “child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness till the day of his manifestation to Israel” (Lk 1:80). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect. Appearance and Identity. Mark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance “in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mk 1:4). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the Law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (Ex 19). It was also the site of refuge for (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Hos 2:14, 15; Ez 47:1–12; esp. Is 40:3–5). 27

The strange dress of John the Baptist, “clothing made of camel’s hair with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6 NIV) may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) or forming part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mk 9:14; 11:18). Who did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20–23), John only identified himself as “A voice cries: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period; prophecy on the one hand was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2–6), yet on the other hand was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28, 29; Mal 3:1–4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one “like unto Moses” (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5, 6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20–23), it is clear that his dress, life-style, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7–15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1–4; 4:5, 6). Proclamation. John’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was only false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1–4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2–4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12). In light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or turning “toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of the tax collector (Lk 3:12,113) and soldiers (3:14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (3:10, 11). Baptism. The Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim 28

(Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom. What was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings which guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14, 15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16–18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the day of judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element which John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism. Another precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite along with circumcision and the offering of which constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not gentile converts, and had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagans” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7–10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry. In the Qumran community we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that baptism, along with penitence, formed part of the initiation of members into this eschatologically oriented community. Assuming John was familiar with this community, it is possible that his similar practice of baptism derived to a degree from that community’s practice. Nevertheless, John transformed the meaning of baptism in his administration of it, which was open to the entire nation, once-for-all in character, and had a stronger eschatological flavor. If John’s baptism had this clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which our Lord responds, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness” (15). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event which John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29, 30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as the Messiah, as a representative of the people before God. His baptism therefore demonstrated solidarity with the people in 29 their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21, 22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John. John’s View of Jesus. Throughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie” (Mk 1:7). His self- understanding apparently sprang from the application of 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4– 6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7, 8; Jn 1:26–28; 3:28–31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:38). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a from Ps 2:7) together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (1:29, 36), an anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross, and the “Son of God” (1:34, a probable equating of Jesus with the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11). In light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned (“Are you he who is to come, or should we look for another?” Mt 11:2–8). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s own despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9–13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8, 9). When John’s disciples bring their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he is the Messiah, Jesus responds by quoting :5, 6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to indeed be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected. Jesus’ View of John. That Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is implied by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. John “came to you in the way of righteousness” (Mt 21:32), had “borne witness to the truth, … a burning and shining lamp” (Jn 5:33– 35), and practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1–8). John’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the 30 judgment of God (Mt 11:13–15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus. Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom. To understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15–18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman- Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabataean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3–12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did in fact arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’ feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (Mk 6:21–29). John was beheaded at Herodias’ request in approximately A.D. 29 or 30.

The Dead Sea, near where Josephus says John the Baptist was imprisoned. The Disciples of John. While it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent day of judgment. Apparently his disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by John and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18–23) and after his death taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29). We know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the 31 prayers taught by their master (Lk 11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (11:2–4). After his death it is likely that other disciples of John came over to the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29, 30). Not all did so, however, as is attested by the presence of disciples of John encountered by Paul approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–19:7). Upon hearing Paul’s witness to Jesus, these Ephesian followers of John responded by being baptized in the name of Jesus and received the Holy Spirit (19:4–7). It is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period. DAVID C. CARLSON Bibliography. F.F. Bruce, NT History; C.H. Kraeling, John the Baptist; C.H.H. Scobie, John the Baptist; J. Steinmann, St John the Baptist and the Desert Tradition; W. Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition.2

2 Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (1200–1204). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. 32

JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. PREVIEW •Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood •Appearance and Identity •John’s Proclamation •John’s Baptism •John’s View of Jesus •Jesus’ View of John •Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom •The Disciples of John

Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood Luke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8–13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13–17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5). There existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe. John’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, NLT). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect. 33

Appearance and Identity Mark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist … lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, NLT). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3–5; Ez 47:1–12; Hos 2:14–15). The unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, NIV)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18). Who did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20–23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2–6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28–29; Mal 3:1–4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5–6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20–23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7–15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1–4; 4:5–6). John’s Proclamation John’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1–4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2–4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12). 34

In light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12–13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10–11). John’s Baptism The Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom. What was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16–18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism. Another precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7–10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry. If John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, NLT). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29–30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of 35 deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21–22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John. John’s View of Jesus Throughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, NLT). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4–6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7–8; Jn 1:26–28; 3:28–31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35–36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, NEB—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11). In light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, RSV). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9–13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5–6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected. Jesus’ View of John That Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33–35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1–8). John’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13–15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law 36 and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus. Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom To understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15–18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3–12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21– 29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD 29 or 30. The Disciples of John While it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18–23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29). We know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2– 4). After his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29–30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and 37 other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4–7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.3

3 Elwell, W. A., & Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale Bible dictionary. Tyndale reference library (728–730). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers. 38

JOHN THE BAPTIST Jewish religious figure at the time of Jesus, executed by Herod Antipas (4 B.C.E.–39 C.E.). Sources The basic sources on John the Baptist are Q, Mark, and Josephus Ant. 18.116–19. Information pertinent to the followers of John is found in the Gospel of John and the source of Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27–71. The value of the information in Acts, the special Lukan material, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Mandean writings is disputed. The presence of a non-Christian report (Josephus) to complement the Christian accounts means that the availability of sources is comparatively good. Name John (presumably Aram./Heb. yôḥānān, “God has shown favor”), a name found in the OT, is accompanied in Josephus and Mark by the sobriquet “baptist” (Aram. perhaps tôḇeēl, ṣôḇēʿ, or maṣbaʿ), which apparently points to the distinctive aspect of John’s activity. Activity and Location The most certain aspect of John’s activity is thus that he gave instructions about proper ablution. In this regard, John fits his Jewish environment as it is becoming increasingly known through the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., 1QS 3:8–9) and archaeology (miqwāʾôṯ, ritual baths). It is uncertain whether John prescribed repeated ablutions or distinguished himself by promoting a one-time baptism (Josephus remarkably uses the singular). The placement of John’s activity in the wilderness and at the Jordan River (Mark) stands roughly in accord with the site of his execution according to Josephus (the fortress Machaerus) and with information in the Gospel of John (Bethany across the Jordan and Aenon near Salim). This location is generally accepted and would allow movement across political borders (Judea-, Perea, Decapolis) and access to natural water (“living water”). Josephus and Mark 1:5; 11:32 agree that John was enormously popular. There is no compelling reason to question the Gospels’ tradition that John was active generally prior to Jesus’ ministry, though the exact chronological relationship of the two cannot be specified. Josephus relates that some Jews thought that Antipas’ execution of John had been avenged by God through the defeat of his army by Aretas IV, probably in 36 C.E. John’s death accordingly preceded this date and probably belongs in the latter half of Antipas’ reign. Particularly in view of John’s popularity, the Christian tradition that Jesus was baptized by John (and that John was soon arrested thereafter) is open to historical question. It is not clear that Q described Jesus’ baptism by John. Jesus himself must nevertheless have at least heard about John and doubtless approved of him, perhaps even imitating him in some respects. Religious Message 39

The exact contents and scope of John’s message are difficult to determine. Josephus presents John as someone who exhorts to virtue, righteousness among fellow Jews, and reverence toward God. Given the general political and religious climate, there are likely to have been political overtones pertaining to the future of the Jewish people. Whether John used apocalyptic imagery (cf. Q) is uncertain. In any event, Christian tradition has moved John into a much more definite role as precursor of the Messiah and as Elijah. John’s teaching regarding baptism doubtless involved some discussion of repentance, purity, and forgiveness. Josephus is at pains to deny that the baptism was for forgiveness of sins, while Mark affirms this. Both positions seem to be evolved from an original connection of repentance, baptism, purity, and forgiveness, witnessed also in the writings from Qumran. The controlling idea that forgiveness comes from God will not have been displaced. The location of John’s activity outside Jerusalem, combined with baptism involving forgiveness, raises the question of to what degree John consciously challenged the Jerusalem priesthood. Increasing evidence for the prevalence of Jewish ritual ablutions renders less likely the thesis that a baptist movement must necessarily have stood in opposition to the temple cult. Followers Mark, Q, and John agree in speaking of a special group of “disciples of John.” Remarkably, these writings witness to the continued existence of this distinct group throughout Jesus’ ministry. The kernel of this group undoubtedly goes back to the lifetime of John. A group of John’s adherents seems to have continued on to rival followers of Jesus even after John’s death. Out of the dialogue, Johannine elements such as fasting and baptism might have been introduced into the nascent Christian faith. John’s disciples evidently believed John to be the Messiah (Recognitions 1.54.8; 1.60.1– 2; John 1). After his execution, they seem to have thought John was hidden away by God to return soon (Mark 6:14, 16; 8:28; Recognitions 1.54.8). In all these aspects John’s movement appears to have established a pattern for the early followers of Jesus. Bibliography. C. H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (New York, 1951); E. F. Lupieri, “John the Baptist in New Testament Traditions and History,” in ANRW II.26, 1 (Berlin, 1993), 430–61; C. H. H. Scobie, John the Baptist (Philadelphia, 1964); R. L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet. JSNT Sup 62 (Sheffield, 1991); W. Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. SNTSMS 7 (London, 1968). F. STANLEY JONES JOHN THE DIVINE, DISCOURSE OF An apocryphal Greek narrative told by John concerning the death and bodily assumption (or dormition) of the “all-holy glorious mother of God and ever-virgin Mary.” It is the standard Greek version of the apocryphal Assumption of the Virgin. The many assumption accounts of Mary originated around the 4th century C.E. and have made a profound impact on both the Eastern and Western forms of . The 40

“Assumption of the Virgin” was affirmed as an official doctrine by the Roman Catholic Church in 1950. In this narrative Gabriel announces to Mary that her request for departure from the world will be answered. The , both living and dead, are summoned to visit Mary, offer this assistance and receive her blessing. Jesus comes to take her spirit to paradise, her body is placed in a new tomb in Gethsemane, and three days later her body is taken to heaven. Mary is presented as an important link between the Trinity and humanity. 4 KENNETH J. ARCHER

4 Jones, F. S. (2000). John the Baptist. In D. N. Freedman, A. C. Myers & A. B. Beck (Eds.), Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible (D. N. Freedman, A. C. Myers & A. B. Beck, Ed.) (727–728). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. 41

JOHN THE BAPTIST 1. The Importance of John the Baptist 2. John’s Origins and Early Activities 3. Jewish Expectations and Practices 4. John’s Eschatological Message and Ministry 5. Jesus’ View of John and His Ministry 6. The Death of the Baptist 7. The Baptist Movement in the Christian Era 8. The Christian Portrayal of the Baptist 1. The Importance of John the Baptist. Numerous lines of evidence demonstrate the importance of John the Baptist or John the Baptizer, as he is sometimes called in the NT (cf. Mk 1:4; 6:14, 24). (1) All four Gospels associate John with, or treat him as, the “beginning of the gospel” (cf. also Acts 1:22; see Gospel [Good News]). (2) Jesus reportedly claimed that he was more than a prophet and, from a human point of view, the greatest human being (Mt 11:11/Lk 7:28 and Mt 11:9/Lk 7:26). (3) Unlike the case with other major NT figures (such as the apostles), only the deaths of John and Jesus are given significant treatment in the NT (cf. Mk 6:14–29 and par.). (4) The author of Luke-Acts indicates that John was such a significant figure that he still had disciples or followers long after his death (cf. Acts 18:25; 19:1–7). (5) The Synoptic Gospels state that Jesus submitted to John’s baptism, and the earliest Gospel suggests that at least initially Jesus preached a message similar to John’s (Mk 1:14–15). Also, the Fourth Gospel suggests that Jesus assisted John for a time or followed his example in the wilderness (see Mountain and Wilderness), collecting disciples and supervising (Jn 3:22–36). Indeed, during and at the end of his ministry Jesus expresses his own purpose and authority by comparing and contrasting himself with John and suggesting they are part of a single effort by God to reach his people (cf. Mt 11:16–19/Lk 7:31–35 and Mk 11:27–33 and par.). (6) There are some traditions which suggest that Jesus saw John as the eschatological prophet Elijah redivivus (cf. Mk 9:12–13 and par.). (7) Jesus apparently was thought by some to be John come back from the dead (cf. Mk 6:14 and par.). (8) According to the Synoptic Gospels Jesus did not begin his Galilean ministry (see Galilee) until after John died, which suggests that both John’s life and death influenced how Jesus acted. 2. John’s Origins and Early Activities. Luke alone informs us that John was born into a pious and priestly family, to parents well advanced in age (Lk 1). He also informs us that John’s father, Zechariah, served in Herod’s Temple and that he and his family lived in a town in the Judean hill country (Lk 1:39). Luke 1:36 tells us that his mother, Elizabeth, was a female relative of Jesus’ mother, Mary. The Greek word sungenis is a general term which could refer to an aunt or a cousin (Jn 1:33 suggests that the kinship may have been rather remote). In any case, Jesus grew up in Nazareth, John apparently in Judea. 42

Several considerations have led some scholars to conjecture that John may have been a part of the Qumran community from an early age (see Dead Sea Scrolls). (1) The Qumran community had priestly connections, plus an interest in priestly matters and a priestly Messiah (1QS 5.2). John also had priestly connections, and John’s parents may well have passed away when he was quite young. Apparently, the Qumran community frequently adopted orphans (Josephus J.W. 2.120). (2) The locale of John’s ministry suggests a connection with Qumran. (3) The Gospel tradition introduces John using Isaiah 40:3 (cf. Mk 1:2), a text that was also very important at Qumran (cf. 1QS 8.14). (4) John’s spartan diet and apparent ascetical behavior have analogies with Qumran (S. L. Davies). The Damascus Rule 12.13–14 in fact specifies how to eat honey and locusts. (5) John’s water rite has similarities to Qumran ablution rites. (6) John’s eschatological orientation and belief that the judgment of God would soon fall on Israel itself, with the possible exception of those who would repent, parallel Qumran. John’s apparent belief that the religious leadership of Israel was hopelessly corrupt strikes a chord with some attitudes known to have existed at Qumran. This list, however impressive, does not prove a connection between John and Qumran for several reasons. (1) When we first meet John in the Gospels he is not, or is no longer, part of the Qumran community. Rather, he is undertaking his own ministry by calling the nation to repentance, not merely withdrawing from it as if it were hopelessly corrupt. (2) There are major differences between John’s water rite and the usual lustrations at Qumran (see section 3.3), though there may have been an initiatory water rite at Qumran as well. (3) John allows both the clean and the unclean to come into contact with him (possibly even Gentiles, cf. Lk 3:14) and apparently does not believe in an already existing “righteous remnant” of Israel, that is, one which exists prior to submitting to his baptism. (4) John was perceived by Herod Antipas (see ) to be a political threat in a way in which the Qumran community apparently was not. (5) John’s diet is what would be expected of any itinerant in the wilderness. At most, it only suggests either that John was consciously taking the prophetic mantle upon himself, as his dress suggested (cf. Zech 13:4, 2 Kings 1:8), and/or assuming a vow. In any case, fasting, ascetic behavior and devotion to prayer (cf. Lk 11:1; Mt 11:18 and par.) were by no means unique to the Qumran community. Indeed, Josephus tells us of one Bannus (Life 11–12a) who ate and dressed much like John, lived in the Judean wilderness and stressed ritual ablutions. Thus, while John may have been connected with Qumran at one time, in the Gospels this is no longer the case (see Reicke). 3. Jewish Expectations and Practices. 3.1. Messianic Hope and the Baptist. In early Judaism messianic hope took on a variety of shapes (see Revolutionary Movements). Some Jews expected a particular Messianic figure in the mold of David to come and retake the promised land by force for God’s people (cf. Pss. Sol. 17). Some Qumranites seem to have expected two messianic figures—a priestly one and a kingly one (cf. 1QS 9.11; also T. Levi 18; T. Reuben 6:8). Still other Jews looked for an eschatological prophet like Moses (cf. 4QTest; 1QS 9.11; 43 cf. also the Samaritan expectation of a Taheb who will be a Moses redivivus). There were those who looked for the coming of a messianic age in general without focusing on a particular messianic figure. Other early Jews, apparently including the Sadducees, seem to have had no messianic hopes. P. W. Barnett (1977) has noted a pattern that various early messianic movements took (see Revolutionary Movements). Whether one is talking about Theudas, or the or the Samaritan—or a figure like Jesus—all seem to have drawn significant crowds in remote areas, whether in the Judean wilderness, near the Jordan or in remote areas of Galilee. All of them performed or promised to perform symbolic acts which had messianic overtones (i.e., divide Jordan, cause Jerusalem’s walls to collapse, reveal the Temple vessels on Mt. Gerizim, provide manna in the wilderness for the 5,000). Note that John the Baptizer preached in “the wilderness,” particularly at the Jordan, drew great crowds and performed an act symbolizing a change in the status of at least some of God’s people—water baptism. Given that all messianic movements in early Judaism had some social and political repercussions, even if that was not always their design, it is easy to see how John the Baptist, who so far as we know made no messianic claims, could have been viewed as some sort of messianic figure. In addition, he could have been perceived as a threat to some of the governing authorities and, in light of Jewish views about martyrdom, John could have had an ongoing group of followers long after his death. All of these messianic figures, including the Baptist, implied and in some cases articulated a belief that things were not as they ought to be among God’s people. Thus, at least by implication, the existing authorities, both religious and political, both Jewish and Roman, were indicted by the very existence of these movements. It is into this sort of environment that both John and Jesus came raising messianic hopes and making various authorities uneasy, to the point that both were eventually executed. One particular form of messianic hope which needs to be explored more fully in connection with John the Baptist is the belief that Elijah or one like him would come, signalling the advent either of the messianic age, or of the Messiah or both. Whether there was such an expectation, or at least whether it was widespread during the lifetime of John the Baptist and Jesus, has been disputed (cf. Faierstein; Allison; Fitzmyer). One must consider a number of factors, however. (1) Early Christians did associate John the Baptist with Elijah as the Gospels attest. (2) It is also clear that in Mark 9:11–13 and parallels we have a tradition indicating that the teachers of the Law taught that Elijah must come first to restore all things, but we are not told explicitly what the scribes thought he would come before—either the Messiah, or the Day of the Lord or the Son of man rising from the dead. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that early Christians would have attributed a Christian interpretation of the eschatological Elijah figure to the scribes if there was no basis for this in fact. (3) The tradition found in Malachi 3:23–24 (Mt 4:5–6) says explicitly that Elijah will come before the great and terrible Day of the Lord, which presumably refers to the Day of Judgment (this idea is also found in such texts as Sir 48 44 and possibly 1 90:31). (4) An unpublished fragment from Qumran (4QarP) reads lkn slh l˒lyh qd[m]—“I will send Elijah before”—but unfortunately it breaks off at this point. (5) The baraita in b. ˓Erub. 43a-b, which quotes the Malachi passage and then comments on it, provides us with the earliest clear extra-canonical evidence that Elijah would return before Messiah came. This tradition dates to the third century of the Common Era and may be much earlier, but since it is not associated with a particular Jewish teacher, we cannot be sure. Thus, there may have been a belief in Elijah as forerunner of Messiah in John’s time, but we cannot be sure how widespread it was. What is certain is that the Gospel tradition indicates that Jesus interpreted John the Baptist as an Elijah figure, and since this idea is found in at least two sources, it is very likely to be authentic (cf. Mk 9:12–13 and par. and Mt 11:14). It is also clear from Mark 9:12–13 that we have the sequence of first Elijah (John), then the Son of man, with both suffering similar fates. The natural way to understand Mark 9:11 is to say that the scribes were claiming Elijah would be the first in a sequence of messianic comings, an idea the early church would hardly have predicated of the scribes if the church had invented it and also placed it on Jesus’ lips (Allison). Thus, in the NT there are various traditions suggesting that John was viewed as an Elijah figure, and there is also evidence that Elijah was expected as a precursor of the final eschatological work of God, and perhaps also of Messiah. At least two Gospels indicate Jesus viewed John in this light. 3.2. The End of Prophecy. There are some OT and some intertestamental traditions which suggest that after Zechariah, and Malachi, OT prophecy as we know it ceased. Psalm 74:9 has been understood in this way, or one may point to 1 Maccabees 9:27 which speaks of the distress in the land since the prophets ceased to appear there (cf. 1 Macc 4:45–6; 14:41, 2 Apoc. Bar. 85:3). Of later provenance are traditions in the Talmud that state explicitly that Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi were the last of the prophets. Whether or not one agrees that the apocalyptic literature that came to the fore in the intertestamental period is a form of and the sequel to OT prophecy, there is no question that the classical prophetic movement had disappeared long before the beginning of the NT era. The apocalyptic literature was by and large pseudonymous in contrast to much of classical prophecy, and furthermore it was primarily a literary rather than oral phenomenon. The rabbinic notion of the baṯ qôl (“daughter of a voice”), an audible echo of the heavenly voice that formerly spoke to the prophets, also attests to a difference from the period of classical prophecy. Thus, when John the Baptist arrived on the scene around A.D. 28 (cf. Lk 3:1), he was probably perceived by some as a new and different figure, unlike anyone since the OT prophets and most like such classical figures as Isaiah, Jeremiah or Elijah. 3.3. Jewish Water Rites. The discussion about what precedents there may have been for John’s baptism has been a heated one among scholars (see Baptism). This is in part the case because it is uncertain when proselyte baptism was first practiced by early Jews. In 45 addition to the matter of OT water rituals having to do with ceremonial uncleanness, there is also the vexed question of what, if any, connection the Baptist may have had with the Qumran community (see section 1 above). It is also possible that John’s rite was something new and different, without precedent. With regard to the matter of proselyte baptism, several considerations are relevant. (1) The Mishna (m. Pesaḥ. 8.8) records a dispute between the school of Hillel and Shammai concerning whether or not a newly circumcised proselyte may immerse himself and eat the Paschal meal. If this dispute goes back to Hillel and Shammai, then it pre-dates John’s ministry. (2) The Babylonian Talmud (b. Yebam. 46a) also records a dispute between two first-century A.D. rabbis about proselyte baptism and its necessity. (3) In view of the Jewish belief that Gentiles in general were unclean, the likelihood is strong that there was some rite of initiation such as proselyte baptism for female converts to early Judaism. Thus, proselyte baptism probably did exist during John’s era (but cf. Pusey, Betz, Badia and Taylor, McKnight). However, we must note several differences between John’s practice and that of Jewish proselyte baptism. (1) Apparently, John was the active immerser when he offered his rite, but Jewish proselytes immersed themselves. (2) John performed his rite primarily on Jews who, of course, were never subject to Jewish proselyte baptism. Thus, one may argue that John was practicing proselyte baptism on Jews, which suggests that he did not feel their heredity was an adequate safeguard from God’s coming eschatological wrath. Indeed, it seems he felt Israel was lost, just like the Gentile world, unless they repented and received his baptism. There are also salient differences between John’s practice and both the water lustrations mentioned in the OT and those found at Qumran, including the cleansing ritual in the mikwâ. (1) John’s rite, like proselyte baptism, was a unique and unrepeated ritual so far as we can tell. (2) There is no indication that John’s rite had anything to do with purely ceremonial uncleanness caused, for instance, by touching a corpse. Apparently, it is only or at least primarily moral uncleanness that is at issue in John’s rite. (3) John’s baptism seems to have been an initiation rite, not a rite to continue to maintain purity or cleanliness for one who was already basically in right relationship with Yahweh. (4) There is no evidence that John required a probationary period before being immersed, nor any prior demonstration of one’s earnestness to obey God other than the willingness to come forward and be baptized. When one considers the Qumran initiatory water rite, both the probationary period and self-immersion appear to distinguish the Qumran practice from that of the Baptist. Quite possibly, the Baptist’s rite was uniquely unrepeatable (cf. Badia). Note that John may have been drawing on the ancient idea of trial by water ordeal, in which case the rite is connected with his proclamation about coming wrath and is a visible symbol of preparation for that coming event. One may compare the idea of circumcision being an act invoking the oath curse on oneself, and thus of being cut off by God, if one does not go on to obey the covenant. 46

3.4. Geographical Considerations. John ministered “in the wilderness,” but the question is “Which wilderness?” Was it Perea, as Josephus’ account (Ant. 18.5) and John’s death at the hands of Herod Antipas might suggest? Or was he ministering in the Judean wilderness adjacent to the Jordan? If full weight is given to John 1:28 and 3:23, this might suggest a ministry in the north. Riesner (cf. McCown) has even suggested a ministry in Batanaea. What is clear is that John baptized in the Jordan, and our earliest Gospel, Mark, makes clear that Jesus himself was baptized by John in the Jordan (1:9– 11—hypo Ioannou must mean “by John,” distinguishing this rite from normal proselyte baptism). John may have worked his way up and down the Jordan valley (is this what “all the environs of the Jordan” means? cf. Mt 3:5 par. Lk 3:3). Perhaps he sometimes operated adjacent to the Judean wilderness or in Perea or used some of the streams that flow into the Jordan (if Aenon near Salim is near the Salem in Samaria). Another consideration is whether or not John fully immersed those whom he baptized. If so, presumably he would have needed a body of water of sufficient depth to do so. The Greek verb baptizō does not in itself indicate a particular quantity of water, but if John saw his practice as a modification of proselyte baptism, then he may have totally immersed those who came to him. In any event, there is no reason to doubt that John stayed in the remote regions adjacent to the Jordan, as various different Gospel traditions suggest. Thus the description “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” was an apt one. 4. John’s Eschatological Message and Ministry John the Baptist called his audience to repentance. One major theme of John’s preaching was that Yahweh’s eschatological wrath would soon fall on Israel. What is not clear is the relationship between John’s preaching of repentance and his baptismal practice. Josephus (Ant. 18.5.2) suggests that repentance was seen as a prerequisite to receiving John’s baptism. On the other hand, both Mark and Luke call John’s rite a “baptism of repentance,” which presumably means a baptism that expresses a willingness to repent and live a life that bears fruit corresponding to repentance (cf. Mt 3:8 par. Lk 3:8, 10– 14). That the association of repentance with John’s water rite is historically authentic few would care to dispute, particularly in view of the difficulties this connection suggested for the Christian community when Jesus submitted to such a baptism. Only the First Evangelist suggests a motive for Jesus submitting to the rite—“to fulfill all righteousness” (Mt. 3:15)—which may mean to be obedient to God’s plan for his life, to fully identify with the needs of God’s people. Less probably it may mean he intends to fulfill all Scripture (Davies and Allison). According to Mark, Q and John, John the Baptist expected a successor—the Coming One. It has been suggested that John expected Yahweh to come and bring in the Day of the Lord, which is understandable in light of the prophecy in Malachi. On the other hand, the metaphor of untying the sandal (or possibly carrying the sandal), while it connotes the idea of being unworthy to be the servant of the Coming One, also suggests that John envisioned a human successor, one who would come and baptize with Spirit 47 and fire (possibly an example of hendiadys—the fiery Spirit). This means that John did not see himself as the definitive revealer of God (O’Neill). Did John see Jesus as this Coming One? John 1:29–34 seems to make this identification clear, but a likely authentic Q tradition (Mt 11:2–3 par. Lk 7:19) shows that John had doubts about such an identification even as late as the time of his imprisonment. Possibly these doubts were created by the fact that Jesus did not immediately bring down fiery judgment on Israel. Other authentic elements in John’s preaching probably include: (1) an appeal to charitable and honest conduct (Lk 3:11–14), some of which Jesus also picks up in his proclamation (cf. Mt. 5:40 and par.); (2) a belief that being a descendant of was no guarantee of avoiding the wrath to come, if it was not also accompanied by repentance and its fruit; (3) preaching against immorality, such as that exhibited by Herod Antipas and Herodias in their incestuous union (Lk 3:19) and (4) the idea that the Coming One would gather in the wheat as well as burn up the chaff (Lk 3:17). This means that John conceived of a righteous remnant being created by the Coming One—a community of the faithful who would survive the coming wrath. These themes do not suggest that John preached the coming dominion of God (Heb. maleḵûṯ Yahweh; see Kingdom of God) in the same fashion as Jesus. Apparently he did not stress the aspect of good news entailed in the coming events (see Gospel [Good News]). The summary in Mark 1:14 does suggest that Jesus was influenced, at least in his early Galilean preaching, by John (Witherington). This continuity in preaching between John and Jesus can also be found when one compares the likely authentic parable of the tares (cf. Mt 13:24–30 and par.) to the Johannine preaching found in Matthew 3:7–10 and parallels (Catchpole). Serious attention should also be given to the hints in John 3:22–36 that historically Jesus assisted John or had a parallel ministry involving baptizing in the Judean wilderness prior to John’s imprisonment and Jesus’ Galilean ministry (Linnemann). Thus, in this regard, and also by virtue of the fact that Jesus’ Galilean ministry begins after John baptizes Jesus (and probably after John was imprisoned), one may say that the origins of Jesus’ call and ministry lie in the ministry of the Baptist, and perhaps after John’s death, in Jesus’ desire to continue and to build on some of John’s main emphases. John, therefore, rightly deserves the place he is given in Mark 1 as the beginning of the gospel. This raises the question of Jesus’ view of John, and John’s relationship to God’s coming reign. 5. Jesus’ View of John and His Ministry. Jesus was not stinting in his praise of John. According to the Q tradition in Matthew 11:7–11 par. Luke 7:24–28, John is called “the greatest person ever born” and “more than just another prophet.” In view of the tendency in the early church to emphasize John’s role as a forerunner in relationship to Jesus, subordinating the former to the latter, it is very likely that this Q tradition is authentic. In Matthew 11:7 we find confirmation of the setting of John’s ministry—at the Jordan where there were reeds blowing in the wind. It is possible that in 11:8 we have an allusion to Herod Antipas who is contrasted 48 with John. The way in which this Q tradition is framed suggests that Jesus saw John as the great eschatological prophet, hence the description “more than just another prophet.” This comports with traditions which intimate that Jesus thought of John as an Elijah redivivus figure. The quotation of Malachi 3:1 in Matthew 11:10 also confirms Jesus’ viewpoint. John is one who prepares the way for God’s eschatological activity. The saying in Matthew 11:11b might seem strange—“yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he [John]” (RSV). Jesus is probably not talking about John being outside the kingdom and others in it; rather, he is talking about two ways of viewing people—from a purely human perspective and from a kingdom perspective. Judged from a purely human perspective, or if one is considering human origins, Jesus thought John was the greatest. Thus Matthew 11:12 is not in conflict with 11:11, for 11:12 suggests that the beginning of the advancement of God’s eschatological dominion started when John came on the scene. A similar idea is also found in :16 (possibly a variant of the same tradition found in Matthew 11:12–13) where John is probably not said to be the last of the OT prophets, but rather the one who inaugurates the news of the Dominion of God breaking in (cf. Lk 3:18). The era of the Law and the Prophets lasted until John came on the scene. These conclusions also make sense of another difficult verse, Matthew 11:12b par. Luke 16:16b, which suggests that the violence being done to John and Jesus as proclaimers of God’s new activity is in fact violence against God’s reign (Schlosser). Yet for all the praise of John and close identification with John in this new work of God, Jesus also distinguished himself from John in several ways. (1) John is seen as one who prepares the way and one who expects a successor. Jesus sees his ministry as part of that for which John prepared, and he expects no successor to follow him. (2) In their style of ministries Jesus sees a contrast between himself and John (Mt 11:19 par. Lk 7:33–34), and yet in both cases they suffered rejection by “this generation.” (3) When Jesus answered John’s query from prison (Mt 11:2–6 and par.) he indicated another point of distinction—that is, Jesus’ ministry was characterized by , and Jesus sees the Isaianic about such happenings in the messianic age to be referring to his own ministry. Although both John and Jesus each had a ministry from God, there were points of discontinuity as well as continuity between the two men in their words, deeds and self- understanding. From a saying such as Matthew 11:19b it also appears that Jesus may have regarded himself as divine Wisdom personified, something we have no hint of in John’s case (Witherington). In any event, the measure of the continuity between the two men is perhaps shown by the fact that Mark 6:14, 16 records a likely authentic tradition suggesting that some, including Herod, thought Jesus was John raised from the dead, which they believed explained Jesus’ miraculous powers. 6. The Death of the Baptist Both Josephus and the Gospel tradition agree that John lost his life at the hands of Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee and Perea. If Josephus’ account (Ant. 18.5.2) is to be 49 believed, then it appears John was executed not long before the Nabatean War against Antipas. This likely means he died around A.D. 32 (Reicke). We also learn from Josephus that John was imprisoned in the Machaerus—a fortress in Perea east of the Dead Sea, and that he met his end there. The Gospels do not contradict the testimony of Josephus, though it has been suggested that Mark thought the execution took place in Galilee (6:22). In fact, the text only says that the leading figures of Galilee were invited to Herod’s birthday celebration, which could have been held either in Perea or Galilee. Josephus indicates that John was imprisoned and executed because Herod feared John might stir the people to insurrection. This is a believable rationale for Herod Antipas’ action. Mark 6:20 (cf. Mt 14:5) also informs us that Herod was afraid of the Baptist, but Mark 6:17–29 goes on to relate that John was imprisoned because he had criticized Herod’s incestuous marriage with Herodias. Further, it indicates that John was executed because Herodias nursed a grudge against the Baptist and devised a ruse to force Herod into executing the Baptist. It may be that Josephus is only relating why John was imprisoned by Herod, not the cause of his execution, but if this is not the case then the Gospels disagree with Josephus on what actually led to the Baptist’s death. It will be noted though that Josephus tends to analyze matters in terms of the political issues and forces involved, not in terms of matters of personal intrigue. Furthermore, from Josephus’ account we would never have guessed the eschatological character of John’s ministry or baptism, another factor Josephus downplays or eliminates in his account. Thus, it is doubtful that Josephus should be considered a more reliable authority on the matter of John’s death than Mark (Scobie). 7. The Baptist Movement in the Christian Era That John had a considerable number of disciples who followed his practices and preaching is indicated in various Gospel sources (cf. Jn 1:35; 3:25–36; Lk 11:1). Indeed, the Johannine material suggests some of Jesus’ first disciples were originally John’s disciples (this idea is not found in the Synoptics). That John also had a following after his death is indicated by such texts as Acts 18:25; 19:1–7. Consequently, the possibility remains that the movement not merely endured but spread after John’s death. To this day there is a small sect called the Mandaeans in parts of Iraq and Iran who claim to have kept this movement going continuously into the modern era. Modern Christendom was first made aware of their existence when Christian missionaries encountered them in the seventeenth century. It is doubtful that the Mandaean literature, which dates back only to the eighth century, can help us discern anything about the historical John the Baptist, except to witness that his ongoing impact was considerably greater than Christians have sometimes thought. In point of fact, John the Baptist is mentioned by various early Christian writers such as , , Hippolytus and Origen. He figures in several apocryphal Christian works such as the second-century Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Proto evangelium of James, and according to Epiphanius he is mentioned in the nonextant 50

Gospel of the Ebionites. Mention should also be made of the references to John’s disciples in the Clementine Recognitions I.60, where one of John’s disciples is said to claim that John was the Messiah (Farmer). It is further witness to the ongoing fascination with John that in the twentieth century various scholars have thought they have discovered traditions in the New Testament that ultimately came from the Baptist’s followers (for example, Kraeling). Few such conjectures have received widespread acceptance among scholars, though they are not totally implausible (for example, in the case of Luke 1). What is much more certain is that John the Baptist made a major impression on all the canonical Gospel writers and that each sought to present him in a particular and somewhat distinctive way. 8. The Christian Portrayal of the Baptist It has sometimes been thought that the NT reflects an anti-Baptist polemic, based on the assumption that the Christian movement saw the Baptist movement as a competitor. However, Wink has shown that, far from polemics against the Baptist, what we find in the NT is an attempt to claim John for the Christian cause. This entails a rather full recognition of the importance of the Baptist so that his testimony about “the Coming One” may be given its full weight. As one moves chronologically through the Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, then John) one finds, with the possible exception of Luke, that John’s words about Jesus become increasingly confessional. Yet even as early as Mark, John is already the beginning of the good news. Thus, it must be considered doubtful that Christians were guilty of projecting some sort of later conflict between Christians and John’s followers into the Gospels. It is hard to believe that the early church would create such a notable group of traditions which grant the Baptist an important role in the Gospel, given the tendency of the church increasingly to stress the uniqueness of Jesus. Wink urges that Jesus’ own positive evaluation of the Baptist led to the incorporation of these traditions in the Gospels. 8.1. John the Baptist from Four Perspectives. In terms of the editorial perspective of each evangelist several motifs are readily apparent: 8.1.1. Mark. Mark seems to portray the Baptist as Elijah incognito (paralleling the messianic secret). He also goes to some lengths to parallel the passion of John and Jesus, the only two figures whose death he gives significant attention to in his Gospel (see Death of Jesus). It may be that Mark 6 has been sandwiched between the sending and return of Jesus’ disciples because Mark has earlier indicated that the ministry of Jesus in Galilee is precipitated by John’s removal from the scene (cf. 1:14). 8.1.2. Matthew. The First Evangelist stresses that Jesus and John stand together against a hostile religious (and political) opposition to their ministries. It is interesting however that we do not find this parallelism in the uniquely Matthean material within the birth narratives (see Birth of Jesus). 8.1.3. Luke. The Third Evangelist places John within his broader schema of salvation history as a notable figure in the historical chain of events initiated by God’s 51 intervention into Israel’s history at the turn of the era. He also places more explicit stress than either Mark or Matthew on John’s ministry involving “good news” (Lk 1:19; 3:18). In this way he stresses more than the other evangelists the continuity between Jesus and John, an emphasis seen both in the material shared in common with Matthew and Mark and in the uniquely Lukan material in the birth narratives (see Birth of Jesus). Luke 16:16 need not be seen as being at odds with the attempt to depict John as one who is part of the new eschatological action of God amidst his people, for in view of Luke 1:19 and 3:18, Luke 16:16 should probably be taken to mean that the period of the activity of the prophets had already ended when John came on the scene. 8.1.4. John. The Fourth Evangelist portrays John as the ideal and, indeed, almost- Christian witness to Jesus (cf. Jn 1, 3) as God’s Messiah and Lamb, stressing the subordination of John to Jesus (Wink). If this element of subordination and the idea of John as a preparer for the One who is to follow actually does go back to the Baptist himself, then it is not a case of the evangelists relegating John to a position that he did not have in real life, but rather highlighting and building on John’s own self-proclaimed role. 8.2. A Focus on Mark’s Gospel. It is not sufficient simply to take cursory note of how the Evangelists have edited their sources about John the Baptist in service of their christological interests. It is equally important to gain a sense of the overall portrayal of the Baptist in each Gospel. Space does not allow us to develop fully the portrait of John in each of the four Gospels, thus we will focus on one such sample—the earliest, and in many ways most suggestive, portrait of the Baptist found in Mark’s Gospel. Depending on how one reads Mark 1:1, it is possible that Mark intends to portray the story of the Baptist as “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” If this is so, it affects not only how one reads the rest of the portrayal of the Baptist in this Gospel, but also how one understands what Mark means by “Gospel.” In what sense is the story of John part of the good news about Jesus? Is it just that he was the beginning of the good news of God’s climactic saving activity or is something more intended? In terms of the structure of Mark’s Gospel, one notes that all the references to John are confined to the first eleven chapters of this Gospel. In fact, John appears only periodically in these chapters. He is not an ongoing figure in the flow of the narrative nor does he link the pericopes together. In fact, after the initial paragraphs about John in 1:2–11, followed by a brief reference to John’s disciples fasting in 2:18, John does not appear in the story again until chapter six. There we hear the story of two rejections— that of Jesus in Nazareth, and that of John by Herod Antipas, which led to John’s demise. It is striking that this substantial narrative in chapter six is introduced by the suggestion that Jesus might be John redivivus (6:14), which is very close to the way in which John is introduced into the Caesarea Philippi discussion at 8:27–28. There Jesus asks his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?,” to which the first reply is, “John the Baptist.” Then in the following chapter, Jesus goes on to distinguish himself from John by implying that John is Elijah incognito (9:11–12), whom he says comes to restore all 52 things. Yet in 11:27–33, in the final clear reference to John, Jesus links his authority with John and his baptism. Thus in the Markan schema, we seem to see the following pattern emerging: (1) John linked closely with Jesus and the Gospel (Mk 1); (2) John distinguished from Jesus in his practices as noted by outsiders (Mk 2); (3) Outsiders attempt to identify Jesus with John, even considering him as possibly John come back from the dead (Mk 6 and 8); (4) Jesus distinguishes himself from John, but in the process ascribes to him a significant role in the new saving activity of God—he is Elijah, the one who restores all (Mk 9); (5) In Jerusalem before the chief priests, scribes and elders, Jesus publicly implies some sort of identification of John and Jesus in regard to the matter of divine authorization (Mk 11). This suggests that Mark’s intention in using the Baptist material is not primarily to indicate that John bore witness to Jesus (as in the Johannine material) but rather as a foil to indicate who Jesus was not. This is accomplished in part by distinguishing Jesus’ and John’s activities and correcting the false impression of outsiders about their identities, and in part by having Jesus in two key places (Mk 9 and 11) give testimony to who John really is, a testimony that balances that of John to Jesus in chapter one. This suggests that for Mark, John is the beginning of the gospel, not merely because he was seen to be Jesus’ forerunner, an Elijah figure, but also because Jesus bore witness to John. Finally, it may be important that near the end of Mark’s Gospel outsiders once again misunderstand Jesus and his words, this time assuming he was calling on Elijah (15:35). But Jesus had already spoken of “Elijah” as one who had come and gone as it was written of him (chap 9). Thus the end of the Gospel, unlike its beginning, is a word not about Elijah or his coming or going. Rather, it is about the going and coming again of Jesus. To put it another way, the conclusion of the Gospel is about the death of Jesus, about the God on whom he called, and about that unique one for whom the divine witness is given: “Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here” (16:6). In the end Jesus of Nazareth is not John redivivus. John’s story finishes before the end of the Gospel, but as for Jesus of Nazareth, he comes back from the dead as himself—that is the end of the Gospel. The tension in the narrative is resolved by showing that the discontinuity between Jesus’ and John’s stories is more profound than the continuity. It is no accident that in the New Quest for the historical Jesus, scholars have seen the history of John the Baptist as a rather secure foundation on which to reconstruct an historical estimate of Jesus and his ministry. A major key to understanding the historical Jesus is a proper estimation of the elements of continuity and discontinuity between the ministries and messages of the two major figures in the Gospels—Jesus and John. See also BAPTISM; ELIJAH AND ELISHA; ESCHATOLOGY; JUDGMENT; REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS. BIBLIOGRAPHY. D. C. Allison, “Elijah Must Come First,” JBL 103 (1984) 256–58; L. F. Badia, The Qumran Baptism and John the Baptist’s Baptism (Lanham, MD: University 53

Press of America, 1980); P. W. Barnett, “The Jewish Sign Prophets—A.D. 40–70: Their Intentions and Origin,” NTS 27 (1981) 679–97; O. Betz, “Die Proselytentaufe der Qumransekte und die Taufe im Neuen Testament,” RevQ 1 (1958) 213–34; D. Catchpole, “John the Baptist, Jesus and the Parable of the Tares,” SJT 31 (1978) 557– 70; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel according to St. Matthew, vol. 1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988); S. L. Davies, “John the Baptist and the Essene Kashruth,” NTS 29 (1983) 569–71; M. M. Faierstein, “Why Do the Scribes Say that Elijah Must Come First?” JBL 100 (1981) 75–86; W. R. Farmer, “John the Baptist,” IDB (1962) 1.955–62; J. A. Fitzmyer, “More About Elijah Coming First,” JBL 104 (1985) 295–96; C. H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (New York: Scribner’s, 1951); E. Linnemann, “Jesus und die Täufer,” in Festschrift für E. Fuchs, ed. G. Ebeling et al. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1973) 219–36; C. C. McCown, “The Scene of John’s Ministry and Its Relation to the Purpose and Outcome of His Mission,” JBL 59 (1940) 113–31; S. McKnight, A Light among the Gentiles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); J. C. O’Neill, Messiah. Six Lectures on the Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cochrane, 1980); K. Pusey, “Jewish Proselyte Baptism,” ExpT 95 (1983–4) 141–45; B. Reicke, “The Historical Setting of John’s Baptism,” in Jesus, the Gospels and the Church, ed. E. P. Sanders (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987) 209–224; R. Riesner, “Bethany beyond Jordan (John 1.28), Topography, Theology and History in the Fourth Gospel,” TynB 38 (1987) 29–63; J. Schlosser, Le Regne de Dieu dans les Dits de Jesus (Paris: Gabalda, 1980); C. H. H. Scobie, John the Baptist (Philadelphia: For tress, 1964); T. M. Taylor, “The Beginnings of Jewish Proselyte Baptism,” NTS 2 (1955–56) 193–98; W. Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (Cambridge: University Press, 1968); B. Witherington, The of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). B. Witherington III5 JOHN THE BAPTIST — the “forerunner of our Lord.” We have but fragmentary and imperfect accounts of him in the Gospels. He was of priestly descent. His father, Zacharias, was a priest of the course of Abia (1 Chr. 24:10), and his mother, Elisabeth, was of the daughters of Aaron (Luke 1:5). The mission of John was the subject of prophecy (Matt. 3:3; Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1). His birth, which took place six months before that of Jesus, was foretold by an angel. Zacharias, deprived of the power of speech as a token of God’s truth and a reproof of his own incredulity with reference to the birth of his son, had the power of speech restored to him on the occasion of his circumcision (Luke 1:64). After this no more is recorded of him for thirty years than what is mentioned in Luke 1:80. John was a Nazarite from his birth (Luke 1:15; Num. 6:1–12). He spent his early years in the mountainous tract of Judah lying between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea (Matt. 3:1–12).

5 Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. 1992 (J. B. Green, S. McKnight & I. H. Marshall, Ed.) (383–391). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 54

At length he came forth into public life, and great multitudes from “every quarter” were attracted to him. The sum of his preaching was the necessity of repentance. He denounced the Sadducees and Pharisees as a “generation of vipers,” and warned them of the folly of trusting to external privileges (Luke 3:8). “As a preacher, John was eminently practical and discriminating. Self-love and covetousness were the prevalent sins of the people at large. On them, therefore, he enjoined charity and consideration for others. The publicans he cautioned against extortion, the soldiers against crime and plunder.” His doctrine and manner of life roused the entire south of Palestine, and the people from all parts flocked to the place where he was, on the banks of the Jordan. There he baptized thousands unto repentance. The fame of John reached the ears of Jesus in Nazareth (Matt. 3:5), and he came from Galilee to Jordan to be baptized of John, on the special ground that it became him to “fulfil all righteousness” (3:15). John’s special office ceased with the baptism of Jesus, who must now “increase” as the King come to his kingdom. He continued, however, for a while to bear testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus. He pointed him out to his disciples, saying, “Behold the Lamb of God.” His public ministry was suddenly (after about six months probably) brought to a close by his being cast into prison by Herod, whom he had reproved for the sin of having taken to himself the wife of his brother Philip (Luke 3:19). He was shut up in the castle of Machaerus (q.v.), a fortress on the southern extremity of Peraea, 9 miles east of the Dead Sea, and here he was beheaded. His disciples, having consigned the headless body to the grave, went and told Jesus all that had occurred (Matt. 14:3–12). John’s death occurred apparently just before the third of our Lord’s ministry. Our Lord himself testified regarding him that he was a “burning and a shining light” (John 5:35). 6

6 Easton, M. G. (1996). Easton’s Bible dictionary. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. 55

John the Baptist John the Baptist, or John the Baptizer, an important figure in each of the four NT Gospels. He is identified with the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and understood as the forerunner to Jesus the Messiah. Reference to John is the first point of convergence among the canonical Gospels, all of which give a somewhat similar account of his person, preaching, and activity, though varying in detail. John’s Ministry: Historically, the account of John in each of the Gospels indicates that his was apparently an effective and successful ministry in its own right (Matt. 3:5-6; Mark 1:5). Considerable care is taken to maintain the distinctive character of Jesus’ activity in relation to that of John. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John is arrested and imprisoned before Jesus’ public ministry begins (Matt. 4:12; Mark 1:14; Luke 3:20). In the Fourth Gospel, although Jesus begins his ministry before John’s arrest (John 3:23- 24), the relationship between the two is clarified in the prologue (1:6-9) and elsewhere (1:19-23). In each case, John’s words convey his recognition of the one greater than himself who is to come baptizing not with water but with the Spirit (Matt. 3:11-12; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16-17; John 1:26-27). In Matt. 3:13-15, John is reluctant to baptize Jesus and must be encouraged by Jesus to do so. The care with which the authors seek to clarify the roles of and relationship between these two figures suggests that, because of the impact of John’s ministry and the close proximity of John and Jesus, there was a distinct possibility of the readers confusing the two men and their ministries. Indeed, when Herod, after having had John beheaded, is informed of Jesus’ ministry, his first thought is that John has come back to life (Matt. 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29; :7-9). Further attestation to the effectiveness of the ministry of John the Baptist is found in Acts, where on two occasions Christians encounter disciples of John who, after being further instructed, are received into the church ( meet in Acts 18:24-28, and Paul meets twelve such disciples, perhaps associated with Apollos, in Acts 19:1-7). Thus, the prominence of John’s ministry is attested by the care with which the Gospel writers compose their accounts of him, the fact that Herod deemed it necessary to have him killed (the historian Josephus also reports, with somewhat different details, that John was executed by Herod in the fortress of Machaerus near the Dead Sea), and the fact that some years after Jesus’ death Christians still encountered people (in Asia Minor!) who knew only ‘the baptism of John.’ Prophet: The portrayal of John in the canonical Gospels is that of a prophet who came out of the desert to proclaim the advent of the Kingdom of God and issue a call to repentance (Matt. 3:1-12; Mark 1:4-8; Luke 3:1-20). According to Luke, he was of priestly descent, the son of Zechariah and Elizabeth (1:5-80; 3:2), and John and Jesus were related (1:36). Matthew and Mark describe John’s appearance and diet: he wore a camel-hair cloak with a waist belt made of leather and he dined on locusts and wild honey (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). He baptized those who repented of their sins and announced the coming of one after him who would be greater than he and would baptize with the Spirit. Thus, John is cast into a role like Elijah’s (Matt. 17:10-13; Mark 9:11- 56

13; Matt. 11:7-15; cf. Mal. 4:5-6; Ecclus. 48:10), that is, he is the austere one who prepares for and announces the advent of the Messiah (John 1:6-8, 19-36). Luke 1-2 most clearly balances John’s role with that of Jesus by his presentation of John traditions in parallel with Jesus traditions, a parallelism that echoes the story of Abraham and (Gen. 17:15-21; 18:1-15; 21:1-8). Scholars have noted the possibility that John knew of and perhaps was even associated with the Qumran community (which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls). The location of his ministry, content of his preaching, interest in water purification, and lifestyle all point to similarities between John and the Essenes. It has also been suggested that, prior to the beginning of his own ministry, Jesus may have been among the followers of John. All such conclusions remain speculative, however. See also Elijah; Elizabeth; Essenes; Forerunner; Herod; Machaerus; ; Scrolls, The Dead Sea; Wilderness; Zechariah. P.L.S7

7 Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper’s Bible dictionary (1st ed.) (501–502). San Francisco: Harper & Row. 57

JOHN THE BAPTIST Introduction Born in the hill country of Judea to godly parents of priestly origin (Luke 1:5–6), John seems to have been attracted to the movements so characteristic of Israel during the late Second Temple period, especially those which gravitated towards the wilderness as a place of either refuge or expectation. Like , Elizabeth (John’s mother) was barren, but waited upon God to bring her honour (Luke 1:24–25) by giving her a child (1:7). An angel revealed to Zechariah (John’s father) that Elizabeth would indeed become pregnant and give birth to a child, who was to be named John (1:13), and who would be filled with God’s Spirit and announce the restoration of Israel (1:14–17). Elizabeth was a relative of Jesus’ mother, Mary (1:36, 39–45). The evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls has led many to think that John had some connection to the Qumran community. The following parallels are often drawn: 1. they lived in the same deserted area; 2. they shared an intense interest in Isaiah 40:3 (*cf. Mark 1:2; Rule of the Community, Manual of Discipline 8:14); 3. they both focused on ritual purity; 4. they were both anti-materialistic (*cf. Luke 3:11 and Rule of the Community 3:2; 5:2); 5. they may have had a similar diet (*cf. Mark 1:6 and Damascus Document 12:13–14); 6. they both believed God’s wrath was about to fall on Israel; and 7. they both had priestly connections (C. H. Kraeling, John the Baptist, pp. 1–32). However, recent scholarship has argued that the link is not as direct as was once supposed. For instance, the Qumran exegesis of Isaiah 40:3 is different from that of John, since he did not expect his followers to join him in the wilderness (see J. E. Taylor, The Immerser, pp. 25–29). Furthermore, John’s practice of baptism, a once and for all act of immersion in conjunction with a decisive repentance of sins, differs markedly from the Qumran purification practices (calling into question parallel 3. above), which consisted of frequent self-administered baptisms. So although John and the Qumran community had a similar view of Israel (the nation and its leaders were corrupt and in need of restoration), of eschatology (God will soon come to judge the nation and restore the true Israel), and of ethics (Israel must repent and practise righteousness), these shared perceptions do not prove that John was a former Qumran member. John and Qumran understood God’s will for the nation of Israel in the same terms, and as a result they were both drawn into the wilderness around the Jordan. John was imprisoned by Herod Antipas for fearlessly declaring Herod’s marriage to be illicit (*cf. Josephus, Antiquities 18.118–119 and Mark 6:17–29), and was imprisoned at Machaerus (across the Jordan). During a sensual party, Herod’s daughter-in-law pleased him so much that he promised her whatever she wanted. Much to her mother’s delight, she asked for John’s head on a platter. John’s death made an immediate impression on Jesus (*cf. Matt. 14:13). John had followers for some time after his death (Acts 19:1–7). A Prophet Not all prophets are the same, as Robert Webb has shown (*John the Baptizer and Prophet, pp. 219–348), and John is probably best classed as a ‘leadership popular 58 prophet’. He led a large peasant movement, faced opposition from and death at the hands of the Roman authorities, focused his efforts on the deliverance of Israel, and gathered his followers for a symbolic event which recalled significant themes from Israel’s history and prophetic expectation. Many Jews may have believed that prophecy had ceased (or that it was extremely rare and open to question [cf. 1 Macc. 9:27]); when John announced the coming judgment of God he may have changed people’s minds and led many to think that the last days had arrived. John’s ministry was directed both to the nation, as a call to restoration through baptism and conversion, and against its corrupt leadership (Luke 3:7–14 par.; Matt 3:7–10). As a prophet, he would have expected to experience opposition from religious leaders, and in Matthew 3:7–10 he denounces both Pharisees and Sadducees. (In Luke 3:7–14 his audience is less specific.) John’s message was focused on the kingdom (Matt. 3:2), or (if Matthew is projecting Jesus’ language onto John) on Israel’s final deliverance, so clearly expressed in the idea of the kingdom. His conviction that the final days were about to arrive drove John to demand from his listeners a heart-felt and effective repentance of sin, regardless of their station in life. Specifically, John exhorted his audience not to rely on Israelite privilege as against moral reformation, to share their clothing and food, to collect only what was due, and to practise social justice (Luke 3:10–14). Baptism, then, expressed one’s acceptance of John’s vision for Israel, of Israel’s need for repentance, of the individual’s participation in Israel’s covenant guilt, and of a fundamental dissatisfaction with what the temple could offer to Israel. John’s threat was that the judgment of God would come on all those who did not repent, turn from their sinful ways, and so receive his baptism of repentance (Matt. 3:11–12 par.; Luke 3:15–18). John expected God to act soon and decisively in judgment of the nation through a messianic figure. This person would baptize with the Holy Spirit (effecting God’s gracious salvation) and fire (effecting God’s holy judgment upon the unrepentant). He would not winnow, but clean the threshing floor after the winnowing; he would gather the wheat into the barn and throw what remained on the threshing floor into the fire to be destroyed (R. Webb, John the Baptizer, pp. 261–306). From these descriptions it appears that John’s vision of the future was not as bright as Jesus’: John seems to have thought that the kingdom and judgment were about to arrive and that Israel needed to repent at once, or be judged; Jesus envisaged a period during which the kingdom was inaugurated prior to God’s judgment. As a prophet, John bore a striking resemblance to Elijah. Many Jews believed that Elijah must come before the Messiah (*cf. Mark 9:11–13), a conviction probably based upon Malachi 3:23–24 (*cf. Babylonian Talmud ‘Erubin 43a-b and Vision from Qumran Cave 4). Jesus associates John with Elijah. When asked by his disciples, after his transfiguration, why the leaders think Elijah must come first, he claimed that Elijah has already come: he was seen in John the Baptist (Mark 9:11–13; cf. also Matt. 11:14). 59

John’s role as Elijah is thus associated with rejection, a theme reflected also in his humble attire (Mark 1:6). A Baptizer John’s baptism had two distinctive features: first, it was in the Jordan, and secondly, it was a once and for all baptism. While John may have baptized in the Jordan simply because it was close to the desert, it is far more likely that he did so to evoke the ancient Jewish tradition of entry into the land as the new people of God (R. Webb, John the Baptizer, pp. 360–366). Having been baptized in the Jordan, the people came out of the water, re-entered the land and sought once again to take it for God as the now pure Israel. That the Jordan was chosen may also have been due to its being ‘living’ or running water; running water was used in the OT only for purification from serious conditions (Lev. 15:13). Baptism signified purification from sin, a removal of sin’s contamination. But there is still no solid evidence to suggest that proselyte baptism, at least as an unrepeatable initiation rite, had developed by the time of John (S. McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles [Minneapolis, 1991], pp. 82–85). In fact, as J. E. Taylor has shown, it is far more likely that Jews would have understood John’s baptism as a purification of the body following repentance of sins (*The Immerser, pp. 49–100). That is, John preached a baptism in which repentance was publicly demonstrated and which purified the body from impurity. That John saw his baptism as effecting repentance and forgiveness may mean that he regarded the temple’s means of forgiveness (through sacrifices) as ineffective for the true Israel. John’s actual role in the baptisms is unclear, though Christian tradition has quite easily assimilated John’s practices to its own: thus some Christian art depicts John pouring water on his subjects while others have him immersing them. It is well known that in later Judaism the one being baptized immersed himself/herself and was naked to ensure that every part of the body was purified. We cannot be sure how John baptized: he may have immersed people himself, or helped them immerse themselves, or simply supervised the rites. It is highly unlikely, however, that the people were naked, given that they were of both sexes and the acts were public. The focus given to John, however, probably suggests that the repentant Israelites saw John as mediating forgiveness through this baptism of repentance. Consistent with the theme of repentance expressed in baptism, John was known as the one who called sinners into the ‘way of righteousness’ (Matt. 21:28–32). John announced that Israel must turn from its sin and do the will of God, and that this way of obedience was open to all. In fact, John’s proclamation was heeded more by tax collectors and prostitutes than by the religious leaders, and so it is the former who entered the kingdom. This reveals an important connection between John and Jesus: they both called sinful people to repent and form the new people of God. Relationship to Jesus 60

John was a relative of Jesus (*cf. Luke 1:36) and so probably knew Jesus prior to their (overlapping) ministries. Jesus publicly identified himself with John’s call and so received John’s baptism of repentance (Matt. 3:13–17). That Jesus was baptized for the remission of sins did not mean that he was sinful. Rather, it reflected his belief that the nation was in a disastrously sinful state and that baptism for the remission of sins was needed. In accepting John’s baptism, Jesus became a of John in the sense of joining his movement for the restoration of Israel (B. F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus [London, 1979], pp. 115–128). Either as a result of John’s arrest or for some other reason (perhaps a disagreement), Jesus eventually separated from John and formed his own movement, based on the idea of the kingdom of God (*cf. John 3:22–36). This separation indicates that John and Jesus played different roles in the inauguration of the kingdom (Matt. 11:2–19). When asked if he was the expected one (Matt. 11:3), Jesus told John’s disciples that he was inaugurating the eschaton by fulfilling the expectations of Isaiah (*cf. Matt. 11:5–6 with Is. 29:18–19; 35:5–6; 61:1). But John, who prepared Israel for the new era, was superior to any other member of the old covenant (Matt. 11:11). In fact, from the time of John until the time of Jesus’ statements about him, the kingdom had been under assault and violent people were seeking to prevent its arrival (11:12). Both John’s ascetic lifestyle and Jesus’ celebratory ministry were unacceptable to their contemporaries (11:16–19). Their ministries were successive stages in the coming of God’s eschatological kingdom in Israel. The Fourth Gospel depicts John as a witness to Jesus, who is the very Word of God. John confessed that he himself was not the Messiah, Elijah, or the prophet (John 1:19– 21); instead, he was a witness (see Testimony/witness) to the one who comes from the desert declaring the fulfilment of Isaiah 40:3. This coming one is in fact the Lamb of God, the one who can redeem people from their sins. This was recognized by John at the baptism of Jesus; it convinced him that Jesus was the Son of God (1:29–34). See also: ELIJAH. Bibliography C. H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (New York and London, 1951); J. E. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids and London, 1997); R. L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study (Sheffield, 1991). 8 S. MCKNIGHT

8 New dictionary of biblical theology. 2001 (T. D. & B. S. Rosner, Ed.) (electronic ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.