IBR Studies

                                                                          By:
                                                                Robert L. Webb 

The historicity of Jesus' baptism by John is virtually certain. The historicity of the
theophany (the Spirit's descent and divine voice) is probable, but its timing as
contemporaneous with the baptism is open to question. As a prophetic call-vision,
the theophany quite possibly happened at a later time. Based on an exploration of
John's baptism and ministry within the context of Second-Temple Judaism, the
significance of Jesus' baptism is explored: it is a significant turning point in Jesus'
life; Jesus is identifying with Israel's need to repent, and he is in agreement with
John's vision for a reconstituted Israel; since Jesus is a disciple of John, the
beginning of his ministry involves baptizing within John's movement. It is also
important to understand Jesus' later ministry along a trajectory that begins with
Jesus' association with John. This later ministry shows both continuity with and
development beyond Jesus' early involvement with John.

Key Words: Jesus' baptism, John the Baptist, theophany, Jesus and the spirit,
Jesus as Son of God, Jesus as disciple of John, Jesus and Israel, Jesus and
eschatology

                                              1. Introduction

Many scholars have made the assertion that Jesus was baptized by John,¹ and
indeed some have stated that it is one of the most sure facts we can know about
Jesus. It is surprising, however, that few have fully set out and weighed the
arguments surrounding the event.² The purpose of this essay is twofold: First I will
set out the historical evidence that leads to a conclusion that Jesus' baptism by
John is historical. Second, I will explore the implications of this event for
understanding the historical figure of Jesus.

                        2. The Historicity Of Jesus' Baptism By John

Since the focus of this essay is the historicity of Jesus' being baptized and its
significance, we cannot simply make the assertion of historicity; we must weigh
the historical evidence and render a historical judgment.
            The issue before us is made somewhat more complicated by the fact that in
the texts reporting the incident there are actually two events being narrated: the

                                  Webb:  Jesus' Baptism                                             2

baptism of John by Jesus and the theophany of the Spirit's descent and the
heavenly voice. The two are usually linked in the narratives. For example, Mark
1:9 narrates Jesus' baptism, and 1:10b-11 provides the theophany narrative. Mark
1:10a links these two as taking place one right after the other: "And just as he was
coming up out of the water, he saw."  For the purposes of our discussion, I begin
with an examination of the baptism itself and then turn later to an examination of
the theophany, though at times, of course, the two must be addressed together.

2.1. An Examination of the Historicity of the Baptism

The evidence for Jesus' baptism is found in a number of accounts, both canonical
and extracanonical. The question immediately arises whether or not these sources
are independent of each other, and thus whether the criterion of multiple
attestation would apply to this event.³

The baptism of Jesus is recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels (Mark 1:9-11 =
Matt 3:13-17 = Luke 3:21-22):

            It is quite evident that Matthew and Luke have used Mark in constructing
their accounts of Jesus' baptism. This is particularly clear in the theophany portion
of the text. The question arises, however, whether or not Q was also a source for
Matthew and Luke. Several lines of evidence support a Q source for Jesus'
baptism. First of all, at a few points Matthew and Luke agree with each other's texts
against Mark. With respect to the baptism narrative, both Matthew and Luke
make the following editorial changes to Mark's text: (1) Both drop the reference to
John and the Jordan (Matthew does use it earlier in 3:13). (2) Both after Mark's
aorist indicative use of the verb bapti&zw to an aorist participial form (Matthew
uses the nominative, while Luke uses the genitive). (3) Both include the name
I)hsou= in the statement about Jesus' being baptized, whereas Mark had the name
earlier in v. 9. With respect to the theophany narrative, Matthew and Luke make
several changes as well: (4) Both change Mark's use of the verb sxi&zw (to tear)
to the verb a)noi&gw (to open), but they use different forms of the verb: Matthew
uses the aorist passive indicative form, while Luke uses the aorist passive
infinitive. (5) Both change Mark's prepositional phrase ei)j au)to&n (on him) to e)p )
au)to&n (onto him). (6) Both alter Mark's word order to_ pneu=ma w(j peristera_n
katabai&non(the Spirit like a dove descended) by shifting the verb katabai&nw
(to descend) to precede the phrase w(sei_ peristera&n (like a dove). So, the
Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark include omission of the same words,
addition of the same words, alteration of grammatical forms, and alteration of
word order. We should note, however, that in three of the six agreements observed
above (1, 2, and 4) Matthew and Luke alter Mark's text at the same point, but how
they alter the text is only similar, not identical. This renders the evidence not quite
as compelling as it otherwise might have been.
            A second line of evidence is the text of Q itself,⁴ which suggests that the
presence of a baptism/theophany pericope is needed from a narrative perspective.⁵
The immediately prior pericopae in Q are John's preaching of repentance (Q
3:7-9) and his announcement of a coming figure (Q 3:16-17). The immediately
succeeding pericope is Jesus' wilderness temptation (Q 4:1-13). In the temptation
pericope, the devil twice inaugurates his temptation with the statement, "If you are
the Son of God" (Q 4:3, 9). Asking if Jesus was the Son of God appears somewhat
incongruous unless it is a reference back to the voice in the theophany that stated,
"You are my Son." So, from a narrative perspective, it makes better sense that the
devil calls into question the theophanic declaration than that there is a repeated
question without a reference. Another narrative piece of evidence is that, without
the baptism of Jesus, the prior pericopae concerning John the Baptist lack a clear
link to the ministry of Jesus. Why begin with John (Q 3:7-9; 3:16-17) if there is no

5                                             IBR Studies

link between John and Jesus at this point in the text.
            The above evidence does not lead to certainty,⁶ but the weight of the
evidence leads me to a conclusion of probability: the text of Q most likely
contained an account of Jesus' baptism and the theophany. While this conclusion
allows one to claim that an account of the baptism of Jesus probably has at least
two independent sources, the fragmentary nature of the evidence precludes a
reconstruction of the Q text apart from perhaps a few phrases.
            The Fourth Gospel does not provide an account of the event itself but it
does acknowledge that Jesus' baptism occurred by placing it on the lips of John
the Baptist, who is a witness testifying to the event:

                                           Webb:  Jesus' Baptism                                             6

            What may be observed in the Evangelist's account is that the baptism is
assumed to have occurred (v. 31), and John bears witness to the Spirit's
descending like a dove. Interestingly, John does not recount the theophanic voice
but, rather, recounts his own divine revelation (v. 33). Instead of the divine voice,
acknowledging Jesus as my beloved Son, it is John himself who bears witness that
this is the Son of God(v. 34b).
            It is generally acknowledged that the Fourth Gospel is independent of the
Synoptic Gospels.⁷ The account of John's witnessing to Jesus based upon his
baptism reveals little verbal agreement apart from the phrase to\ penu=ma
katabai=non w(j perister&an("the Spirit descending like a dove," v. 32). It
would be difficult to narrate the event without such a stock phrase. Its use here
suggests knowledge of the event rather than use of the Synoptic Gospels as a
source. This reference to Jesus' baptism in the Fourth Gospel is, therefore, an
independent witness to the event.
            There are also a few extracanonical references to Jesus' baptism.⁸ The
Gospel according to the Hebrews is quoted by Jerome in his commentary on
Isaiah (on Isa 11:2, in Esaiam 11:1-3). The fragment containing the reference to
Jesus?baptism is cited as GHeb 2:⁹

7                                                  IBR Studies
           
            GHeb2 alludes to the event of Jesus' baptism with a clause, but the
emphasis is on the theophany. No mention is made of John the Baptist in the
extant text. The theophany consists of the descent of the Spirit without mention of
a dove. The voice that speaks in the theophany is the Spirit. There are a few
phrases that are similar to the Synoptic accounts: (1) Factum est autem cum
ascendisset Dominus de aqua(when the Lord ascended from the water); (2)
descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti (the whole fountain of the Holy Spirit
descended); (3) fili mi (my son). While these phrases are similar, they also
manifest differences. The first identifies Jesus as the Lord. The second adds to the
identification of the Spirit the descriptors the whole fountain and Holy. The third is
simply a direct address rather than a statement of identity, as it is in the Synoptic
Gospels. When GHeb 2 does make a statement of identity, it is considerably
expanded beyond that contained in the Synoptic Gospels: Tu enim es requies mea,
tu es filius meus primogenitus, qui regnas in sempiternum(For you are my rest,
you are my firstborn son, who shall reign in eternity).
            While there are similarities between this account in GHeb 2 and the
canonical Gospels, they may be explained as stock phrases required to tell the
same event. When this observation is combined with the considerable differences
between GHeb 2 and the canonical Gospels, we may conclude that there does not
appear to be direct dependence upon the canonical Gospels.¹⁰
                Another extracanonical source for Jesus' baptism is the Gospel according
to the Ebionites, which is quoted by Epiphanius (Panarion 30.13.7-9). The section
relevant to Jesus' baptism is cited as GEbion 4:¹¹

            The account of Jesus' baptism in GEbion 4 is quite similar to the accounts
in the Synoptic Gospels. Much of the wording is similar and appears to be
dependent upon the Synoptic Gospels, particularly Matthew and Luke. For
example, 4.1 appears quite similar to Luke 3:21, which describes the people being
baptized, and then Jesus is baptized. Furthermore, 4.6 is quite similar to Matt 3:14-
15 in recounting John's asking to be baptized by Jesus, but his response is to deny
the request with the explanation that it is a fulfillment. What is also of note in
GEbion 4 is the repetition of the theophanic voice, once in the second person
addressed to Jesus (4.3) and the second time in the third person addressed to John
(4.5). This repetition appears to be a conflation of Luke's second-person address
by the theophanic voice (You are, 3:22) and Matthew's third-person address (This
is, 3:17).
            These extensive similarities between GEbion 4 and the Synoptic Gospels,
and distinctive elements in Matthew and Luke incorporated therein indicate that it
is probably dependent upon at least these two Gospels. Therefore, the Gospel
according to the Ebionitescannot be counted as an independent witness to Jesus'
baptism.¹²
                A third extracanonical reference that is of interest is recorded in the Gospel
according to the Nazareans.¹³ The relevant fragment is quoted by Jerome in
Adversus Pelagianos 3.2. This section is cited as GNaz 2:

9                                               IBR Studies

            In GNaz 2 Jesus is invited by his mother and brother to join them in being
baptized by John. But Jesus refuses because John's baptism is for the forgiveness
of sins, and Jesus claims to have committed no sin. A text that denies the event of
Jesus' baptism certainly cannot be used as a witness to the event. But it must be
included here for two reasons: (1) it is an opposing witness, and (2) it is a valuable
witness to the developing Christian response to Jesus' baptism by John. We should
also note that scholars differ over whether or not the Gospel according to the
Nazareansis dependent upon Matthew's Gospel or not.¹⁴
                From the above examination of the early texts that refer to Jesus' baptism,
we may conclude that the criterion of multiple attestation supports the authenticity
of this tradition. Three and probably four independent witnesses may be identified:
Q 3:21-22 (probable); Mark 1:9-11; John 1:29-34; GHeb 2 (I will count this as
four independent witnesses from this point on).¹⁵ A difficulty arises that we should
note at this point. While we have several independent witnesses, not all of the
witnesses give us an account of the event of Jesus' baptism. While Q is probably
an independent witness to the fact that Jesus was baptized, no account can be
reconstructed. Similarly, the Johannine account does not describe the event itself
but assumes it. The account in GHeb s2 alludes to the baptism but focuses on the

                                          Webb:  Jesus' Baptism                                             10

theophany. Thus, while we have four independent witnesses to the fact of Jesus'
being baptized, we really have only one extant description of the event--namely,
Mark 1:9-11.¹⁶
                A second criterion that supports the authenticity of Jesus' baptism by John
is the criterion of embarrassment. This criterion holds that material that had the
potential to embarrass or cause difficulty for the early church is probably
authentic. This is based on the premise that it is unlikely that the early church
would have created material that would be embarrassing to its claims concerning Jesus.¹⁷
                Mark's account states without equivocation that Jesus was baptized by John
(1:9). Two problems are created by such an account: (1) Why does Jesus place
himself in the subordinate position to John implied by submitting to his baptism?
(2) Why does Jesus submit to a baptism that is a baptism of repentance for the
forgiveness of sins(Mark 1:4)? Mark's balancing of the baptismal scene
(1:9-10a) with the theophany (1:10b-11) is perhaps the only way in which he
mitigates the impact of these two problems.
            But these two questions are quite clearly issues in the early church, for the
developing tradition concerning Jesus and John attempts to deal with the
embarrassment caused by them. Luke's account (3:21-22) downplays these
two issues by narrating John's arrest (3:19-20) prior to the account of Jesus'
baptism. Placing the events in this order has the effect of providing narrative
distance between John and Jesus. Furthermore, Luke's account refers to the
baptism only in passing, using it to help set the scene for the theophany.¹⁸
                Matthew addresses the problem in quite a different manner. His account
adds a verbal exchange between John and Jesus. John evidently recognizes
Jesus for who he is,¹⁹ and so he expresses his need to be baptized by Jesus.
But Jesus declares that he must be baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness.²⁰
Thus Matthew both subordinates John to Jesus and at the same time removes the
stigma of a baptism for forgiveness by having the act fulfill all righteousness.
            The Fourth Gospel mitigates these issues in yet another way. It does not
narrate the baptism at all. Rather, it only alludes to the baptism in the course of
explaining that the purpose of John's baptizing ministry was to identify the Son
of God for John the Baptist, in order that he might be revealed to Israel (1:32).
The basis for John's witness to Jesus is the theophany (descent of the Spirit),
and the content of John's witness is what in other texts is the content of the
theophanic voice: "I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to
baptize with water said to me, He on whom you see the Spirit descend and
remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I myself have seen
and testified that this is the Son of God" (1:33-34).

11                                                IBR Studies

            In GHeb 2 the baptism is not explicitly stated but only implied: "It
happened then when the Lord ascended from the water." We are not told why he
was ascending from the water. The rest of the text expands the theophanic voice
which not only emphasizes Jesus' divine sonship but also states that he came in
fulfillment of prophecy.
            The text of GEbion 4 does state that Jesus came and was baptized by
John (4.1). But the rest of the text (4.2-6) expands upon the theophany by having
the voice speak twice, the first time in the second person (following Mark and
Luke) and the second in the third person (following Matthew). Based upon this
twofold revelation, John seeks to be baptized by Jesus (also following Matthew).
Subservience is emphasized by GEbion 4.6 with the descriptive addition not found
in Matthew: John fell down before him and said, "I implore you".
            Finally, GNaz 2 addresses the problems caused by the baptismal story in
yet a different way. It explicitly denies that Jesus was baptized, because he had no
need for the forgiveness of sins: "See, the mother of the Lord and his brothers said
to him: 'John the Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins, let us go to be baptized
by him.'" He said to them, however: "What sin have I committed that I should go
and be baptized by him? Unless perhaps something which I said in ignorance."
            It is quite evident from Mark 1:9-11 through GNaz 2 that there is a
developing trajectory in which the baptism by John is downplayed (and then
ultimately denied), and the theophany is emphasized. This trajectory reveals the
early church's increasing discomfort with Jesus' baptism by John. It is quite
unlikely that Jesus' baptism by John was a creation of the early church. Applying
the criterion of embarrassment, therefore, Jesus' baptism by John is historically
probable.
            The two criteria of multiple attestation and embarrassment support the
conclusion with a high level of probability that Jesus was baptized by John. This
conclusion is widely supported among scholarly circles.²¹ But a minority position
has been expressed that, while John and Jesus both existed, their paths never
crossed--a position most clearly argued by Morton Enslin.²² He argues that John
never baptized Jesus and provides three reasons for this view: (1) The Gospel
accounts increasingly reduce John from an independent prophet into a
conscious forerunner of Jesus.²³ (2) Josephus' description of John the Baptist is
different from the Gospels in the reason provided for John's execution, and it
lacks any reference to John's announcement of a coming figure (which is the
emphasis in the Gospels).²⁴ (3) John's disciples continued as a viable movement
after John had supposedly dramatically identified Jesus as the coming figure.²⁵
                These three reasons, however, are not adequate to support the claim that
Enslin is making. With respect to his first reason, it is evident that the Gospels'
interpretation of John as Jesus' forerunner is from a Christian perspective. But, as
noted above, the Gospels presentation of Jesus baptism by John is also

                                    Webb:  Jesus' Baptism                                           12

characterized by discomfort that it happened at all. In this instance then, the
various Christian attempts to interpret John as Jesus' forerunner is evidence of a
historical relationship needingto be interpreted rather than evidence of a Christian
creation. In this light, Enslin's observation supports the historicity of the baptism
rather than the reverse.        
            Enslin's second reason (Josephus' account) has two problems. It is true that
Josephus' reason for John's execution by Herod Antipas is different from the
Gospels, but his reason does not contradict the Gospels; rather, it complements
them. The Gospels view John's arrest and execution from a religious perspective,
while Josephus' explanation is sociopolitical. With the inextricable link in
Second-Temple Judaism between the religious and the sociopolitical dimensions
of life, the explanations by the Gospels and Josephus are but two sides of a coin.²⁶
The second problem with Enslin's reason is an argument from Josephus' silence
about John's proclamation of a coming figure. Not only is an argument from
silence questionable, in this instance it fails to appreciate Josephus' own editorial
biases, particularly his anti-eschatological and anti-messianic orientation.²⁷ Since
it serves Josephus' purposes to portray John the Baptist positively, he can hardly
attribute to John an orientation that he strenuously opposed.
            Enslin's third argument raises an interesting point but is only valid if its
premise is true--that John dramatically identified Jesus as the coming figure. This
premise is questionable, however, on at least two counts. John's question from
prison (Matt 11:2-6 = Luke 7:18-23), which probably has a historical core,²⁸
portrays John as a disillusioned skeptic, or at best, a hesitant inquirer--hardly one
who dramatically announces Jesus' true identity! Second, the identification of
Jesus as John's announced figure is more likely due to early Christian theological
reflection (e.g., Matt 3:14-15; John 1:29-34).
            Enslin's reasons for arguing that John did not baptize Jesus do not hold up
under critical reflection. The preliminary conclusion reached above must therefore
stand. As a historical event, Jesus' baptism by John is highly probable, to the point
of being virtually certain.
            We must turn now to the second of the two elements contained in these
texts reporting Jesus' baptism by John: namely, the theophany narrative.

2.2. An Examination of the Historicity of the Theophany

The theophany narrative has two components: the descent of the Spirit in the form
of a dove and the voice from heaven announcing Jesus, "my Son, the Beloved."
            The discussion above concerning multiple attestation of the baptismal
accounts would also apply to the theophany accounts. The existence of four
independent witnesses would support the historicity of the theophany.²⁹

13                                            IBR Studies

            However, a number of problems arise concerning the historicity of the
theophany. First, of all, to portray Jesus as endowed with the Spirit and identified
as God's Son fits very well with early Christian theological reflection concerning
Jesus.³⁰ Applying the criterion of dissimilarity calls the historicity of the
theophany into question.
            Second, it also serves the early Christians well from an apologetic
perspective to address the problems of Jesus' baptism by John. We saw above that
the developing tradition increasingly emphasized the theophany and downplayed
the baptism. Even in Mark, where the two items are given more equal weight, the
very presence of the theophany immediately succeeding the baptismal account
helps to mitigate the difficulties with the baptism. Crossan calls this "theological
damage control."³¹
                Third, the manner in which the theophany is narrated appears to be a
midrash of a number of Hebrew Bible texts, gathered here to provide an initial
interpretation of the person of Jesus. For example, the theophanic voice is a
combination of Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. These texts interpret Jesus as God's son, who
is the expected Davidic Messiah and the Spirit-anointed servant of Yahweh.³²
                These three points show that the theophany is subject to weighty problems
when examined from a historical perspective. However, other observations may be
made that mitigate these problems somewhat. The first mitigating factor is that the
two components of the theophany encapsulate two key elements of the historical
Jesus tradition from later in his ministry. First, Jesus attributed his power in
ministry to a special endowment of the Spirit, and the presence of the Spirit was
evidence that the kingdom was present (e.g., Matt 12:27-28 = Luke 11:19-20;
Matt 12:31-32 = Mark 3:28-29 = Luke 12:10; cf. Luke 4:16-21). Second, Jesus
speaks of a special relationship with God as his father (e.g., Matt 26:39 = Mark
14:36 = Luke 22:42; Matt 11:25-26 = Luke 10:21; cf. Matt 11:25-27 = Luke
10:21-22). These two components are central to the vocation Jesus articulates and
lives,³³ and they can be placed within the thought world of first-century Judaism
without a specifically Christian slant to them. Applying the criterion of
coherence³⁴ to this matter suggests that the content of the theophany could derive
from an experience that Jesus had.³⁵ The matter could be expressed more strongly:
the presence of the Spirit and a filial relationship with God are experiential in
nature rather than conceptual. If Jesus experienced them, then we may ask, "What
inaugurated this experience?" A conceptual answer is inadequate; the question
requires an experiential answer. In other words, at some point in his early ministry,
Jesus had an inaugural experience that formed the basis for the vocation he
subsequently articulated and lived.³⁶
                Another mitigating perspective may be noted from the prophetic nature of
Jesus' ministry. If Jesus was perceived by himself and others as a prophet, then it
is reasonable to assume that at some point he experienced a prophetic call-vision.

                                    Webb:  Jesus' Baptism                                           14

If so, then this theophany could be understood to function as a prophetic call-
vision for Jesus.³⁷
                A third mitigating factor is the presence in the theophany narrative of the
description like a dove (Matt 3:16 = Mark 1:10 = Luke 3:22; cf. John 1:32). Much
ink has been spilled discussing the possible origins and significance of this
imagery,³⁸ but none has been entirely satisfactory. This lack of a convincing or
obvious background suggests its authenticity according to the criterion of
dissimilarity.³⁹
                One final point needs to be brought into the equation. The sources narrate
the baptism and the theophany together, with the latter happening at the occasion
of the former. The implication is that Jesus' sense of call to his ministry begins
with the theophany experienced at his baptism. The narrative sequence of the
Synoptic Gospels would support such a development: Jesus is baptized, receives
his prophetic call-vision, and then immediately launches into his public ministry.
However, the evidence of the Fourth Gospel presents a different picture: after his
baptism, Jesus is part of John's movement and engages in a baptizing ministry in
association with John and his ministry. By implication, at some later point in time
Jesus does launch out and begin his public ministry as we know it. If so, it is quite
possible that a prophetic call-vision may have led to this switch in the direction of
his activities, but this would have taken place at some time subsequent to his
baptism.⁴⁰ In other words, after his baptism, Jesus participates with John in his
baptizing ministry, and then later, after a prophetic call-vision, Jesus launches out
into his public ministry as narrated in the Synoptic Gospels. It is quite possible,
then, that two temporally separate events were later linked together. This linking
could have been done by Jesus in his narration of the events to his disciples (for
Jesus' telling them would be the only way they would find out about them), or it is
the early Christian witness that has linked the theophany with the baptism, using
the former to interpret the latter.
            The weighing of this evidence is not easy. My own judgment is that it is
probable that Jesus did at some time experience a prophetic call-vision, and it is
somewhat probable that it incorporated the elements of divine sonship and spirit
anointing. It is possible that such a call-vision may have taken place at Jesus'
baptism, but there are also problems with their association. It is equally possible
that it occurred at some point in time subsequent to the baptism. The focus of this
essay is on Jesus' baptism by John and so, given the prominence of reinterpreting
the theophany narrative with Christian theological and apologetic concerns, it is
best methodologically to proceed first with examining the significance of Jesus'
baptism by John apart from the possible implications of the theophany. And this is
how I will proceed below. However, I will conclude with a couple of observations
concerning the implications of the theophany for understanding the baptism of

15                                            IBR Studies

Jesus.  

2.3. Summary

This investigation of the historicity of the baptism narrative and the associated
theophany narrative has led to the following conclusion. First of all, the baptism of
Jesus by John is historically very probable or even virtually certain. This
conclusion is in agreement with a number of scholars whose judgment is that this
is one of the most certain things we can know about Jesus.
            On the other hand, the theophany narrative is somewhat problematic. It is
probable that Jesus experienced some type of prophetic call-vision early in his
ministry. But there are difficulties with associating such an event with Jesus'
baptism, rendering such a link only a possibility. It is, therefore, methodologically
preferable to focus our attention on the significance of Jesus' baptism apart from
the possible association with the prophetic call-vision of the theophany narrative.
This possible link will be considered briefly later.
            Having established the historical probability of Jesus' baptism by John, we
must now turn to an examination of the character of John's baptism as well as
other elements concerning John.

                            3. John And His Baptism In The Context
                                       Of Second-Temple Judaism

Before considering the relationship between John and Jesus, we must consider
briefly certain key elements that contribute to our understanding of John.⁴¹ These
include John's baptism, his prophetic proclamation, his prophetic role, and other
features of his life and death. Since I have discussed elsewhere matters of
authenticity and the historicity of many of the texts that concern John the Baptist, I
will not repeat such discussion here but refer the reader to that earlier work.⁴²

3.1. John's Baptism

To understand John, it is most helpful to begin with the event that is probably most
distinctive about him--his baptism. The ritual use of water in ablutions is a
widespread religious phenomenon, and it was certainly practiced within first-
century Judaism and Christianity. That John performed a water rite identified as a
baptism is one of the most sure pieces of historical information we possess
concerning John.⁴³ Specific features of John's baptism may be understood within
the context of Second-Temple Judaism (this is elaborated below), and yet the form
and functions of his baptism have features that were distinctive within his context.

                                    Webb:  Jesus' Baptism                                           16

John was in continuity with his tradition and yet innovative at the same time. The
fact that John was given the appellation or nickname the baptizer or the Baptist⁴⁴
suggests that those who give him this nickname recognized that baptism was
important to John and that it was also distinctive. For this reason, it is interesting
to observe that baptism was not simply something that John performed--it was also
something that he preached.⁴⁵ He not only called people to repentance and
baptism, he also had to explain the significance of his baptism.
            Though other forms of ablution were practiced in Second-Temple Judaism
(e.g., handwashing, footwashing, sprinkling), John's baptism involved bathing,
that is, an immersion.⁴⁶ This is not surprising, since bathing was a common form
of Jewish ablution.⁴⁷ Most descriptions of John's baptism associate it with the
Jordan River (e.g., Mark 1:5, 9-10). The use of flowing water (or living water)
was required in the Hebrew Bible for the most severe forms of uncleanness,⁴⁸ and
in Second-Temple Judaism flowing water or rivers were associated with
repentance and forgiveness.⁴⁹ In light of this context, John's use of flowing water
for his baptism is quite understandable. The particular river associated with John's
baptism is the Jordan River. While this may have no significance, it does place
John in the wilderness context.⁵⁰ Both the wilderness and the Jordan River were
important symbols of the Exodus and Conquest in the ideology of prophetic
movements of the Second-Temple period.⁵¹ Since other features of John's
ministry show links with such ideology, John's use of the Jordan River probably
does have symbolic significance.⁵²
                An interesting feature of the form of John's baptism is that it is described
as being performed by John (u(p 0 au)tou=, Mark 1:5; cf. v. 9), and John himself
states, "I baptize" (Matt 3:11 = Luke 3:16; Mark 1:8). All evidence in Second-
Temple Judaism points to Jewish ritual bathing practices--being self-administered.
John's participation in the act of baptizing, therefore, is probably John's
innovation and may have contributed to his nickname, the baptizer.
            How was John's baptism understood to function? The evidence indicates
that the answer to this question involves several interrelated functions. First,
John's baptism was an expression of conversionary repentance--a reorientation of
one's life in returning to a relationship with God.⁵³ This is borne out by the NT
phrase ba&ptisma metanoi&naj (a baptism of repentance) used to describe John's
baptism (Mark 1:4 = Luke 3:3), and the important role that repentance evidently
had in his preaching (Matt 3:8 = Luke 3:8 Matt 3:2; cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.117).⁵⁴
John preached imminent judgment coming upon all and called people to
repentance and baptism. Neither was optional--repentance and its expression in
baptism went hand in hand. It was a repentance- baptism.⁵⁵ The practice of
confessing their sins (Mark 1:5 = Matt 3:6) while being baptized is probably an
expression of this close link between the baptism and repentance. The ethical

17                                            IBR Studies

content of John's preaching contributes not only to the message of judgment (e.g.,
Matt 3:7-10 = Luke 3:7-9) but also to the call to an ethically reoriented life
following baptism. Josephus describes John as one who exhorted the Jews to
practice virtue and act with justice toward one another and with piety toward
God, and so to gather together by baptism(Josephus, Ant. 18.117; cf. Luke 3:10-
14).
            Second, for John and those being baptized, baptism was understood to
mediate divine forgiveness.⁵⁶ In Mark 1:4 = Luke 3:3, John's repentance-baptism
is linked with the forgiveness of sins. In Jewish thought forgiveness of sins was
usually associated with repentance (e.g., Isa 55:7) but not with an ablution.
According to John, however, it was not just repentance that was required, for
baptism and repentance were inextricably linked. It was repentance-baptism that
was essential.⁵⁷ Therefore, the baptism did more than simply symbolize a
forgiveness already received on the basis of the repentance alone. Since the
baptism was neither optional nor secondary to the forgiveness of sins, the baptism
should be understood to mediate the forgiveness in some way.⁵⁸
                An interesting implication of this function of baptism is that, since people
were baptized by John rather than performing it for themselves, John could be
considered a mediator of the forgiveness.⁵⁹ The mediatorial role of the baptizer
in performing baptism to mediate forgiveness is parallel to the mediatorial role of
a priest in performing a sacrifice to mediate forgiveness in the sacrificial system
(e.g., Lev 5:5-10). This parallel is striking in light of the NT tradition that John
came from a rural priestly family (Luke 1:5, 23).⁶⁰
                These first two functions are closely related: John's baptism was an
immersion performed by John through which a person expressed conversionary
repentance and received divine forgiveness.
            A third function of John's baptism was that it purified from uncleanness.
Josephus states that "baptism certainly would appear acceptable to him [i.e., God]
if used for purification of the body" (Ant. 18.117). While elements of
Josephus' explanation of John's baptism are historically problematic, especially
the statement that distinguishes the body and the soul,⁶¹ nevertheless, it is quite
probable that John's baptism was understood to purify. In the Hebrew Bible and
later Jewish thought, the use of immersions was predominantly concerned with
cleansing from uncleanness,⁶² so that if John's baptism had nothing to do with
cleansing it would be quite unusual--and no evidence supports such a claim.⁶³ In
the Hebrew Bible it would appear that actual immersions were only used when the
contagion (i.e., that which caused the uncleanness) was something physical. But in
the Second-Temple period, the use of immersions expanded to include cleansing
from uncleanness caused by moral contagion as well. For example, Sib. Or.
4:165-67 contains an exhortation to wash your whole bodies in perennial rivers.