IBR Studies
Jesus' Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications
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
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):
|
Matthew 3:13-17 |
Mark 1:9-11 |
Luke 3:21-22 |
|
13 To&te paragi&netai
o( I)hsou?j a)po_ th=j Galilai&aj
e)pi_ to_n I)orda&nhn pro_j
to_n I)wa&nnhn tou= baptisqh=nai
u(p ) au)tou=. |
9a Kai_ e)ge&nteto e)n
e)kei&naij tai=j h(me&raij h}lqen
I)hsou=j a)po_ Nazare_t th=j Galilai&aj |
21a )Ege&neto de_ e)n tw|= baptisqh=nai a#panta
to_n lao_n |
|
14 o( de_ I)wa&nnhj diekw&luen au)to_n
le&gwn, )Egw_ xrei&an e!xw
u(po_ sou= baptisqh=nai, kai_ su_ e!rxh| pro&j me; |
|
|
|
Matthew 3:13-17 |
Mark 1:9-11 |
Luke 3:21-22 |
|
15 a)pokriqei_j de_ o( I)hsou=j ei]pen pro_j au)to&n, !Afej a!rti, ou#twj ga_r pre&pon
e)sti_n h(mi=n plhrw=sai pa=san diaiosu&nhn. to&te a)fi&hsin
au)to&n. |
|
|
|
16a baptisqei_j
de_ o( I)hsou=j eu)qu_j a)ne&bh a)po_ tou=
u#datoj: |
9b-10a kai_ e)bapti&sqh
ei)j to_n I)orda&nhn u(po_ I)wa&nnou. kai_ eu)qu_j
a)nabai&nwn e)k tou= u#datoj |
21b kai_ I)hsou=
baptisqe&ntoj kai_ proseuxome&nou |
|
16b kai_ i)dou_ h)new|&xqhsan [au)tw|=] oi( ou)ranoi& kai_ ei]den [to_] pneu=ma [tou=] qeou= katabai=non w(sei_ peristera_n [kai_] e)rxo&menon
e)p ) au)to&n: |
10b ei}den sxizome&nouj tou_j ou)ranou_j kai_ to_ pneu=ma
w(j peristera_n katabai=non ei)j au)to&n: |
21c-22a a)new|xqh=nai
to_n ou)rano_n kai_ katabh=nai to_ pneu=ma to_ a#gion
swmatikw=| ei!dei w(j peristera_n e)p ) au)to&n,
|
|
17 kai_ i)dou_ fwnh_ e)k tw=n ou)ranw=n le&gousa, Ou[to&j
e)stin o( ui(o&j mou o( a)gaphto&j, e)n w|{ eu)do&khsa. |
11 kai_ fwnh_ e)ge&neto
e)k tw=n ou)ranw=n, Su_ ei} o( ui(o&j mou o(
a)gaphto&j, e)n soi_ eu)do&khsa. |
22b kai_ fwnh_n
e)c ou)ranou= gene&sqai, Su_ ei] o( ui(o&j mou o( a)gaphto&j, e)n soi_
eu)do&khsa. |
|
13 Then Jesus came from
Galilee to John at the |
In those days
Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee |
21a Now when all the
people were baptized, |
|
14 John would have
prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" |
|
|
|
15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this
way to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. |
|
|
|
16a And when Jesus had
been baptized, just as he came up from the water, |
9b-10a and was baptized by
John in the |
21b and when Jesus also
had been baptized and was praying, |
|
16b suddenly the heavens
were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a
dove and alighting on him. |
10b he saw the heavens
torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. |
21c-22a the heaven was
opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like
a dove. |
|
17 And a voice from
heaven said, "This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased." |
11 And a voice came from
heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased." |
22b And a voice came from
heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased." |
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:
|
John 1:29-34 (Greek) |
John 1:29-34 (English) |
|
29 Th|= e)pau&rion ble&pe
to\n I)hsou=n e)rxo&menon pro\j
au)to&n, kai\ le&gei, |
29 The next day he saw
Jesus coming toward him and declared, "Here is the Lamb of God who takes away
the sin of the world! |
|
30 ou[to&j e)stin u(pe\r
ou[ e)gw\ ei]pon, |
30 This is he of whom I
said, 'After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me be cause he was before me.' |
|
31 ka)gw\ ou)k h|!dein au)to&n,
a)ll ) i3na fanerwqh|= tw|= I)srah\l
dia\ tou=to h]lqon e)gw_ e)n u3dati bapti&zwn |
31 I myself did not know
him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be
revealed to |
|
32 Kai\ e)martu&rhsen I)wa&nnhj le&gwn o3ti Teqe&amai
to\ pneu=ma katabai=non w(j peristera\n e)c ou)ranou=, kai\ e!meinen e)p )
au)to&n. |
32 And John testified, "I
saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. |
|
33 ka)gw\ ou)k h|!dein au)to&n,
a)ll ) o( pe&myaj me bapti&zein e)n u#dati e)kei=no&j moi
ei]pen, )Ef ) o4n a@n i!dh|j to\
pneu=ma katabai=non kai\ me&non e)p ) au)to&n, ou[to&j e)stin o(
bapti&zwn e)n pneu&mati a(gi&w|. |
33 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.' |
|
34 ka)gw\
e(w&raka, kai\ memartu&rhka o#ti ou[to&j e)stin o( ui(o_j tou=
qeou=. |
34 And I myself have
seen and have testified that this is the Son of God." |
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
|
GHeb (Latin) |
GHeb 2 (English) |
|
sed iuxta euangelium quod Hebraeo sermone conscriptum
legunt Nazaraei: Descendet super eum omnis fons Spiritus Sancti. Dominus
autem spiritus est, et ubi spiritus Domini, ubi libertas |
but according to the Gospel which was written in the Hebrew
language and read by the Nazoraeans: The whole fountain of the Holy Spirit
came upon him. The Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is freedom |
|
Porro in euangelio cuius supra fecimus mentionem, haec
scripta reperimus: Fac tum est autem cum ascendisset Dominus de aqua,
descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti, et requieuit super eum, et dixit illi:
fili mi, in omnibus prophetis expectabam te, ut uenires, et requiescerem in
te. Tu enim es requies mea, tu es filius meus primogenitus, qui regnas in
sempiternum. |
Further in
the Gospel which we mentioned above we find that the following is written: It
happened then when the Lord ascended from the water, that the whole fountain
of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him and said to him: My son, I
expected you among all the prophets that you should come and that I should
rest upon you. For you are my rest, you are my firstborn son, who shall reign
in eternity. |
7 IBR
Studies
GHeb 2 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
|
GEbion 4 (Greek) |
GEbion 4 (English) |
|
1 Kai\ meta\ to\ ei) |
1 And after much is
said in the Gospel it continues: After the people had been baptized Jesus
also came and was baptized by John. |
|
2 Kai\ w(j a)nh=lqen a)po\ tou=
u3dato, h)noi&ghsan oi( ou)ranoi\ kai\ ei!den to\ pneu=ma to\ a#gion
e)n ei!dei peristera=, katelqou&sh| kai\
ei)selqou&sh| ei) au)to&n. |
2 And when he ascended
from the water the heavens opened and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a
dove descending and coming to him. |
|
3 Kai\ fwnh\ e)k tou= ou)ranou=
le&gousa: su& mou ei] o( ui(o\ o( a0gaphto&, e)n soi\
hu)do&khsa,
kai\ pa&lin:
e)gw\ sh&meron ge ge&nnhka se. |
3 And a voice from
heaven said: "You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased," and next: "This
day I have generated you." |
|
4 Kai\ eu)quj
perie&lamye to\n
to&pon fw=j
me&ga. (O i)dw&n,
fhsi&n,
o( I)wa&nnhj le&gei au)tw|=: su\
ti&j ei], ku&rei (om. MS. M); |
4 And suddenly a great
light shone about that place. When John saw it, they say, he said to him: "Who
are you Lord?" |
|
5 Kai\ pa&lin fwnh\ e)c ou)ranou= pro\j
au)to&n: Ou!to&j e)stin o(
ui(o\j mou o( a)gaphto&j, e)f
) o#n hu)do&khsa. |
5 And again a voice
came from heaven which said to him: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am
well pleased." |
|
6 Kai\
to&te, fhsi&n, o(
I)wa&nnhj prospesw\n au)tw|= e!legen: De&omai& sou, ku&rie
su& me ba&ptison. (O de\
e)dw&lusen au)to\n le&gwn: !Afej o!ti ou!twj e)sti& pre&pon plhrwqh=nai
pa&nta. |
6 After this, it says,
John fell down before him and said: "I implore you, Lord, you baptize me."
But he refused him and said: "Let it be, since it is necessary that every
thing will be fulfilled." |
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 Ebionites cannot 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
GNaz 2 (Latin) |
GNaz 2 (English) |
|
In
Evangelio juxta Hebraeos, quod Chalda ico quidem Syroque sermone sed
Habraicis litteris scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secundum
Apostolos, sive ut plerique autumnant, juxta Matthaeum, quod et in
Caesariensi habetur bibliotheca, narrat historia: |
In the Gospel
according to the Hebrews which was written in the Chaldaic and Syriac
language but with Hebrew letters, and is used up to the present day by
the Nazoraeans, I mean that according to the Apostles, or, as many
maintain, according to Matthew, which Gospel is also available in the Library
of Caesarea, the story runs: |
|
Ecce, mater Domini et fratres ejus dicebant ei: Joannes
Baptisma baptizat in remis sionem peccatorum: eamus et baptizemur ab eo.
Dixit autem eis: Quid peccavi, ut vadem et baptizer ab eo? Nisi forte hoc ipsum
quod dixi, ignorantia est |
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." |
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
Nazareans is 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 needing to 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-
(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
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
John in the wilderness context.50 Both the
wilderness and the
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
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,
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,
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" (
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.
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 18
"Stretch out your hands to heaven and ask forgiveness for your previous deeds."64
John's use of baptism to cleanse from moral contagion is consistent with this
expanded use of immersions in the Second-Temple period. It also coheres with
John's concern with repentance and forgiveness in conjunction with his baptism.
The state of uncleanness from
which John's baptism cleansed would have
been considered serious because it was concerned with moral contagion. This may
explain why John's baptismal ministry is associated with the
we observed above, flowing or living
water was required for cleansing the most
serious cases of uncleanness in the Hebrew Bible.65
Fourth, John's
baptism foreshadowed the ministry of the expected figure
that John announced. Matt 3:11 = Luke 3:16 contain John's saying: "I baptize
you
with water he will baptize you with holy spirit and fire" (cf. Mark 1:8; cf.
John
1:26?27). The imagery of holy spirit and fire removes the activities of the
expected figure from the realm of a literal water rite, and yet the verb baptize is
used to characterize his activities. Just as the term baptize is used to refer to
John's physical activity of baptizing, so it is also used metaphorically to
refer to
the expected figure's activity. This invites a comparison between the functions
of
their two baptisms. For example, they both cleanse. John's baptism is used to
express conversionary repentance and the expected figure's baptism with holy
spirit might be understood to complete the conversion. It also allows
for the
contrast between the two, with the expected figure being mightier and having a
greater baptism.66
This function of
John's baptism colors it with an eschatological fervor that
coheres closely with John's announcement of imminent judgment and restoration.
John's baptism is the final opportunity to prepare for the eschatological judgment
and restoration to be brought by the expected figure.67
Fifth, Johns baptism functioned as an initiatory rite into the true
John announced to everyone the necessity of his repentance-baptism to be
prepared for the imminent, eschatological judgment and restoration to be
carried
out by the expected figure. John's baptizing ministry, therefore, created a
fundamental distinction between the repentant and the unrepentant, the prepared
and the unprepared, those who would receive the expected figure's restoration
and
those who would be judged. While John called upon individuals to respond,
within
the context of Second-Temple Jewish thought, the effect should be viewed
corporately. It was all
imminent judgment, and it was only the prepared who
would experience the
fulfillment of the ancient hopes and promises for restoration (i.e., a remnant,
or
true
the ones prepared were the group who would be restored, John's baptism was the
rite that changed the status of a person from nonmember to member.68
19 IBR
Studies
The initiatory
function of John's baptism has been rejected by some
scholars.69 But two
observations may alleviate their objections. First of all, an
initiatory rite does not necessarily need to initiate some-one into a closed
community, such as the
sectarian groups in Second-Temple Judaism reveals a wide variety of group
structures. Many of these groups maintained a sectarian identity and yet
remained
integrated into Jewish life (e.g., the Pharisees or the early Christian
movement).70
Second, such a view generally focuses on John as only preaching judgment.71
While this certainly is an emphasis in John's preaching, the evidence indicates
that John also announced imminent restoration (e.g., the promise of a holy
spirit
and the imagery of gathering grain into the granary). In light of Jewish self-
understanding as the elect, covenant people of God and a hope for national
restoration, John's announcement of restoration as well as judgment would have
been understood corporately.
That John's baptism functioned
as an initiatory rite is also suggested by
Josephus? statement in
act with justice toward one another and with piety toward God, and so to gather
together by baptism" [baptismw|= sunie&nai]. The verb su&neimi means to come
together or to gather together,
with the implication of a common purpose, and
the gathering together accomplishes this purpose.72 Elsewhere,
Josephus uses this
same verb to describe Jews joining a group or party or the meeting together of
such a group. For example, shortly after describing John the Baptist, Josephus
uses
the same verb in Ant. 18.315 to describe two brothers, Asinaeus and
Anilaeus,
who became armed bandits: "young men of the poorest class gathered together
[sunh|=san] around them" to form a
peasant army.73 In this
statement by
Josephus concerning John's preaching, the dative baptismw|= is usually translated
in baptism, for baptism, or to baptism,
but these expressions do not
adequately express the sense of the term in the unusual expression baptismw|=
sunei&nai. In light of Josephus'use
of this verb, the dative should probably be
understood as an instrumental of means: by
means of baptism John was calling
his audience to gather together into some form of group, and baptism was the
means by which the group was gathered. From an individual point of view,
baptism was the means by which he/she was gathered
into or joined the group.74
The initiatory
function of John's baptism is also implied by John's call to
conversionary repentance. In the saying in Matt 3:9 = Luke 3:8, John affirms
the
covenant promises (God is able to
raise up children to Abraham), but he
denies that simply being a member of ethnic
to say to yourself, 'We have Abraham as our father'"). For John, then, it is
only
those who have undergone repentance-baptism who have become the true
children of Abraham.75
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 20
Sixth, it is also
possible that John's baptism functioned, at least implicitly,
as a protest against the
baptism mediated divine forgiveness and John, as baptizer, was the mediator of
that forgiveness. We also observed that this had significant parallels to
atoning
sacrifices of the
to those sacrifices. In Second-Temple Judaism, if the
usually the priestly aristocracy's wealth and corruption that was the focus of
the
criticism.76 The saying
of John in Matt 3:7-10 = Luke 3:7-9 is virtually identical
in both Gospels, but the audiences are quite different. Matthew has Pharisees and
Sadducees, while Luke has crowds.
If the Matthean text is a more accurate
identification of the original audience for the saying,77 then the
pointed rebuke in
this text could imply that John was critical of the
in light of the close connection between the Sadducees and the
3.2. John's
Prophetic Proclamation
Not only was
John perceived to be a baptizer, he
was also understood by many
people to be a prophet.79 In a
manner reminiscent of prophets in the Hebrew Bible,
John announced imminent judgment, called the people to repentance-baptism, and
proclaimed the imminent coming of a figure who would
bring judgment and
restoration.80 In the
subsequent discussion, we examine John as prophet from two
perspectives: the content of his prophetic announcements and the public role of
prophet itself.
The most distinctive element
of John's prophetic proclamation was his
announcement of an expected figure. The NT interprets this figure to be
messianic
(Luke 3:15) and to have been fulfilled in Jesus. But it is reasonable to ask
how
John?s description might have been understood in light
of contemporary Jewish
expectation. The texts that describe John's expected figure (Mark 1:7-8; Matt
3:11-12 = Luke 3:16-17) include the following elements in the description: (1)
his
activities include judgment and restoration; (2) he is coming; (3) he is mighty
(i.e.,
mightier than John); (4) he will baptize with holy spirit81 and fire,
and (5) his
judgment and restoration are portrayed using imagery of the threshing floor.
A survey of the Hebrew Bible
and Second-Temple Jewish literature reveals
a wide variety of expected figures who could be
characterized as bringing
judgment and restoration (thus satisfying the first element of John's expected
figure). These include human agents such as the Davidic or Aaronic Messiah, the
eschatological prophet or Elijah-redivivus, supernatural figures such as
the
archangel Michael, Melchizedek, or the Son of Man,82 and even
God himself.
Furthermore, the second and third elements describing John's expected figure
(coming and mighty) are also used in Second-Temple literature to describe each
of
21 IBR
Studies
these expected figures (with the exception of Elijah-redivivus, for whom
no
description as mighty is extant).83
With respect to the
fourth and fifth elements of John's description of the
expected figure, the evidence is not as balanced between the different figures.
While, for example, the Davidic Messiah and the Son of Man are each portrayed
as receiving a spirit,84 the only
figure who is described as bestowing a spirit upon
others is God. In some texts this spirit is described as holy, and water/ablution
imagery (i.e., similar to baptize
imagery) is used to describe this bestowal.85 The
use of fire imagery is associated with the judgment brought by Michael/
Melchizedek, Elijah-redivivus, and possibly the Son of Man,86 but fire
is
also used to describe God's judgment, and some of these descriptions also use
language associated with water (e.g., "river of fire").87
Threshing-floor imagery,
including winnowing, burning chaff, and gathering wheat, is only used to
portray
God's judgment and restoration88 and never
to portray the activities of other
expected figures.
Since the characteristics and
imagery used in John's depiction of his
expected figure were drawn from the Jewish Scriptures and were in the air in
Jewish expectation of John's day, it is reasonable to conclude that the
elements of
John's depiction are consistent with his Scriptures and his cultural milieu.
The
most specific characteristics and imagery in the preceding analysis (ablution
language to describe bestowing a holy spirit and a farmer working at a
threshing
floor) lead us to conclude that John's expected figure was most likely
understood
to be God himself.89 However,
at least three points cause us to question this initial
conclusion. First, John compares this expected figure to himself (he who is
mightier than I, Mark 1:7; Matt 3:11 = Luke 3:16), which would have been
considered quite arrogant if the figure was God.90 Second,
John states that this
figure wears sandals that John is unworthy to untie (Mark 1:7; Matt 3:11 = Luke
3:16). While one may speak anthropomorphically of God wearing sandals (cf. Pss
60:8; 108:9), John's statement loses some of its import if in fact John cannot
untie
the sandals in the first place. Third, John's query from prison concerning
Jesus'
identity ("Are you the one who is coming [o( e)rxo&menoj]") alludes to John's
earlier proclamation concerning the mightier one who is coming after me (o&
o)pi&sw mou e)rxo&menoj). By considering the possibility that a human (i.e.,
Jesus) was his expected figure, John indicated that his expected figure was
other
than God.
The tension between key
features that point to John's expected figure as
being God himself and other pieces of evidence that point to a human figure may
be partially resolved by observing the relationship between God and other
expected figures in Jewish expectation. Each of the other expected figures was
understood to bring judgment and restoration as God's agent--it was God's
judgment and restoration being carried out by the expected figure. In fact, in
some
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 22
cases the text blends God as the bringer of judgment and restoration with
another
expected figure who does it as God's agent. For example, in Pss. Sol.
17:1-3 God
is the king and savior who will judge and restore his people, and yet in vv. 21-46
God raises up a Davidic Messiah to accomplish the task.91 In the
same way, the
Hebrew Bible describes God as saving
saving them from
a divine/heavenly prime cause for the judgment or restoration, but a reference
to a
past human figure or an expected figure identifies a historical/earthly
outworking
of the same judgment or restoration. Thus, John's expected figure primarily
manifests the characteristics of God himself because this was evidently his
focus--that is, a focus on what God was going to do, rather than who was going
to
accomplish it or how it would happen in historical/earthly terms. Yet, the
other
features that point to a figure other than God indicate that John expected God
to
work through an agent.92
John clearly
expected judgment (Matt 3:7-10 = Luke 3:7-9),93 but he did
not announce judgment only. The reference to baptizing with holy spirit and fire
(Matt 3:11 = Luke 3:16; cf. Mark 1:8) might refer to a single activity,94 but it is
better understood to refer to the expected figure bestowing a holy spirit as a
restorative action on the repentant and the fire
as an act of judgment on the
unrepentant.95 The two
actions are linked, however, for it is one baptism,
which
is an act of purging, that accomplishes both judgment
and restoration. We should
note that the expected figure's baptism is not producing these two groups
(i.e., the
repentant and the unrepentant); it is people's response to John's preaching and
baptism that does this. The expected figure's action was to complete the
process,
bringing each group to their appropriate end--either restoration or judgment.
While the imagery of the
farmer at the threshing floor is different from the
imagery used in the expected figure's activity of baptism, the sense is similar
(Matt 3:12 = Luke 3:17). The burning of chaff in unquenchable fire is a
referent to
the judgment of the unrepentant, while the statement he will gather his wheat into
the granary alludes to restoration. This much is quite evident. However,
what is
frequently misunderstood is the precise activity of the farmer on the threshing
floor. Usually, this metaphor is understood to be a farmer winnowing the wheat
from the chaff. However, the verb diakaqai&rw does not signify to winnow but
to cleanse, clean thoroughly,96 and the
object of the verb is not grain but the
threshing floor. Furthermore, the instrument in the farmer's hand, a winnowing
shovel (ptu&on), is actually used for
piling the wheat and chaff and removing them
from the winnowing floor, not for the winnowing itself. The instrument for the
act
of winnowing itself is a winnowing fork (qri&nax).97 Thus, the
activity of John's
expected figure being portrayed metaphorically here is not the
separation of the
repentant from the unrepentant (i.e., the wheat from the chaff) but, rather,
taking
each group to its appropriate end, whether blessing or judgment. As in the
23 IBR
Studies
preceding discussion concerning the parallels between John's baptism and the
expected figure's baptism, so it is implied in this metaphor also: it is the
response
to John's preaching and baptism that separates the repentant from the
unrepentant
(i.e., the wheat from the chaff), while the expected figure brings about the
final
judgment and restoration for these respective groups.
From this discussion we may
now glean clues to what John perceived about
the judgment and restoration. First, the judgment and restoration are imminent.
The mightier one is coming (Matt 3:11
= Mark 1:7 = Luke 3:16), and the axe is
already (h!dh)
laid at the root of the trees (Matt
3:10 = Luke 3:9). Second, the
judgment involves the removal of the unrepentant. It is not clear whom John
perceived the unrepentant to be. With his baptism functioning as an alternative
to
the
was probably the
expectation of restoration, and his criticism of Antipas's second marriage
suggest
that another possible sector was the Roman imperialist powers and the people
who
supported them. Third, while it is difficult to be more precise about John's
perception of the judgment and restoration,98 we can
observe that John is not
expecting the end of the world or the
destruction of the universe. John does
expect a radical shift in the sociopolitical and religious life of
but it takes place within the continuity of the space-time universe. We should
note
that the fire in John's pictures only consumes the unfruitful trees (Matt 3:10
=
Luke 3:9) and the chaff (Matt 3:12 = Luke 3:17); the orchard, the wheat, and
the
threshing floor all remain afterward.99 The
implication is that the unrighteous are
removed and the righteous are blessed with a new situation, but one that is in
continuity with their present, human existence.
3.3. John's
Prophetic Role
Having examined
the content of John's prophetic proclamation, we may now turn
to the public role of prophet itself.100 It is
sometimes thought that the last prophet
was Malachi. His book is where the prophetic portion of the Hebrew Bible's
canon ended, and some later texts support such a view.101 Yet
numerous figures
did in fact arise during the Second-Temple period who
were believed by their
followers to be prophets. Analysis of the social roles of these prophets
reveals
three different types of prophets: those whose prophetic role also involved
being
priests, those whose prophetic role also involved functioning as wise persons, and
those whose prophetic role involved relating to the common people.102 These may
be identified respectively by the descriptive names clerical prophet,103 sapiential
prophet,104 and popular
prophet (the term popular is being used in the sense of
that which relates to the populace or common people; one might consider using
the term populist instead).105
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 24
While John may have come from
a priestly family, he was not a priest
while engaged in his prophetic ministry; thus he was not a clerical prophet.
Instead, John was a popular prophet. His audience and following appear to have
been drawn primarily from the common people--the Judean rural peasantry and
the urban poor from
Examination of other
popular prophets during the Second-Temple period
reveals two subtypes, depending upon whether in their
prophetic role they
functioned as leaders of prophetic movements or whether they remained lone
individuals. I use the nomenclature leadership popular prophets and solitary
popular prophets107 to
distinguish between these subtypes.108 Richard A.
Horsley
and John S. Hanson concluded that John the Baptist was a solitary popular
prophet
(though they use the nomenclature oracular prophet).109 However,
several streams
of evidence point to the alternate conclusion, that John was a leadership
popular
prophet--that is, in his prophetic role, John was the leader of a movement.
First of
all, as we concluded above, John's baptism functioned as an initiatory rite
into the
true, remnant
excited by John's teaching and that led Antipas to fear an outbreak of strife (
18.118) implies a certain amount of group formation. Third, John's perception
of
imminent judgment and restoration discussed above also implies the formation of
a distinctive identity held by those who had been baptized by John. The
cumulative effect of this evidence points to the formation of a group. Group
formation only implies a distinctive identity by a group of people, manifesting
an
insider/outsider or us and them
perspective. This does not necessarily mean that
they were organized or maintained a separatist communal lifestyle, as did the
about the formation of this group and provided its distinctive self-perception,
John constituted the group's leader and is thus best understood to be a
leadership
popular prophet.111
3.4. John's
Life and Death
Having examined
his public roles, we conclude this survey of John the Baptist by
briefly considering a few other facets of what may be known about him.
In his infancy narrative, Luke
recounts the events surrounding the
expectation and birth of John into a priestly family in rural
39-45, 57-79). Some scholars have proposed that behind Luke 1 stands a source
derived from followers of the Baptist, a source that was subsequently
Christianized, but others have disputed this claim.112 Whatever
the case, it is
widely recognized that using this account for historical purposes is
problematic.
Nevertheless, John's rural priestly heritage is widely accepted.113
25 IBR
Studies
Subsequent to the
discovery of the Qumran scrolls, speculation raged over
whether or not John was himself a member of the
some similarities between their belief system and John's.114 This
speculation was
fueled by the intriguing reference concerning John's upbringing in Luke 1:80,
that
he was in the wilderness until the day he
publicly appeared to
Josephus' description of celibate Essenes who adopted and raised children (J.W.
2.120), Luke's statement was interpreted to mean that John was raised in the
aspects of his teaching are sufficiently different from the teaching found in
the
from them. Thus, while it is an intriguing hypothesis, is remains speculation.115
The NT identifies
the locale of John's activities as the wilderness (Matt 3:1
= Mark 1:4 = Luke 3:2; Luke 1:80) and the region around the
3:5-6 = Mark 1:5; Luke 3:3), including the east bank of the Jordan (John 1:23;
3:26; 10:40).116 This
location was consistent with John's emphasis on imminent
judgment and restoration because it puts him and his audience in touch with
important symbols from their past history. The wilderness and the
were symbols associated with the Exodus and Conquest. It is interesting to
observe the parallel between John and other leadership popular prophets on this
point. For them, and probably for John also, the
functioned as reminders of God's redemptive actions taken on their behalf in
the
past and as symbols of hope in a similar redemption in the imminent future.117
John's location also
leads us to consider his conflict with Herod Antipas.
The accounts in both the NT and Josephus' Antiquities place John in
direct
conflict with Antipas, and they identify Antipas as the one responsible for his
arrest and execution. Yet, as tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, Antipas had no
jurisdiction over
however, being the lower
when John crossed into the
the
Furthermore, in this location
John would have had contact with the
Nabateans, a trading people whose border was less than 20 km to the east and
who
had a major trade route passing from Nabatea through Perea and into
first John's locale may appear insignificant, but it actually contributes
toward
understanding the conflict between John and Antipas. The Synoptic Gospels
explain that Antipas arrested John for condemning his marriage to Herodias
(Matt
14:3-4 = Mark 6:17-18 = Luke 3:19-20), but Josephus explains that Antipas
arrested John because he feared his great
persuasiveness with the people might
lead to some kind of strife (
order to marry Herodias was the daughter of Aretas IV, king of Nabatea. The
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 26
marriage had been part of a treaty that had provided peace between the
Nabateans
and the Roman
Nabatean royal family and later led to the war between Aretas and Antipas in
which Antipas was defeated and had to be rescued by the Romans (Ant.
18.109-
25). John's proximity to and contact with the Nabateans rendered his attack on
Antipas's new marriage a political threat to the stability of the region.118 It is
interesting to note that Josephus refers to John's arrest and execution by
Antipas
(
precipitated the war between Antipas and Aretas. In other words, his narrative
order suggests a link between Herod's divorce and John's arrest; the NT account
makes this link explicit.
The explanation of John's
conflict with Antipas in the NT is personal and
moral (John condemned his marriage), while Josephus' explanation is public and
political (Antipas feared strife). While appearing contradictory, these two
explanations are actually quite compatible. The NT explains that John condemned
Antipas's second marriage because Antipas had married his brother's wife. This
action was contrary to the Torah (Lev 18:16) and resulted in impurity (Lev
20:21).
Implied in John's condemnation was the charge that the ruler of
regions with a large Jewish population, was breaking the Jewish Torah and was
therefore unclean. These charges would probably not have greatly concerned
Antipas, whose religious persuasions appear to have been minimal at best. But
such charges would raise the level of discontent among his Jewish subjects.
When
this discontent is placed within the context of John's proclamation of judgment
and restoration (which would include judgment of Antipas and restoration of
faithfulness to the Torah) and his announcement of an expected figure who was
coming to bring this judgment and restoration, John's personal attack of
Antipas
had clear political implications. The implications of the NT portrayal of John
are
thus quite consistent with Antipas's fear that John's great persuasiveness with
the people might lead to some kind of strife.119
The Roman
authorities responded to the rise of leadership popular prophets
and their movements with swift and brutal military action, usually resulting in
the
execution of the leader and the scattering and/or death of the followers.120
Similarly, John was arrested by Antipas, imprisoned in Machaerus,121 and
later
executed.122 Our
sources are silent on whether or not any followers experienced a
similar fate.123
4. Implications Of Jesus' Baptism By John
For
Understanding Jesus
Having
ascertained the probability that Jesus was baptized by John, and having
established an understanding of John's baptism and other elements of his
ministry
27
IBR Studies
within the context of first-century Judaism, we are now ready to bring these
two
together in order to appreciate the implications of Jesus' baptism by John for
our
understanding of Jesus.124
4.1. The
Turning Point in Jesus? Life
Prior to being
baptized, Jesus had lived the life of a peasant artisan in the Galilean
town of
John baptized in the
life--he would never return to that former life. The baptism was the point at
which
Jesus turned from his former peasant artisan life and turned to a life of
ministry.
Whether this turning began back in
or whether it began with the baptism and the implications were worked out
afterwards is a nuance that we are unable to address for lack of evidence. But
whatever the case, the event of Jesus' baptism is significant as identifying
the
pinnacle of this turning point.
But the issue of turning point has a deeper issue associated
with it. Mark
describes John's baptism as a baptism of
repentance for the forgiveness of sins
(Mark 1:4b), and when people were baptized, they did so confessing their sins
(Mark 1:5b). No account, Mark's included, states that Jesus confessed his sins
when he was baptized, nor do the accounts specify from
what Jesus needed to
repent--from what Jesus needed to turn.
As addressed above, the later accounts
attempt damage control because of the theological problems that this baptism of
repentance creates. We must address the historical question that it raises:
From
what did Jesus need to repent?
In their attempt to mitigate
the potential theological damage that the issue
raises, as explored above, our sources are not going to be directly helpful. We
are
left with three alternatives at this point. First of all, we could simply take
the
approach found in early Christian Gospels. In the first section of this essay
we
noted the theological concerns about this issue developing in the time period of
Matthew through the Gospel according to the Nazareans. However, our
historical
concerns are different from their theological concerns. From a methodological
perspective, a theological presupposition cannot take the place of considering
historical questions and their evidence.125
Second, we could
make possible inferences about Jesus' state of mind from
what we may know about his background and suggest possible sins of which Jesus
may have been guilty. This is the approach of Hollenbach. He proposes that, as
a
carpenter, Jesus was a middle-class artisan upon whom the poor of society
depended. Jesus would have seen the abuses that this social stratification would
have allowed. [T]hrough John's preaching
Jesus discovered that he had
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 28
participated directly or indirectly in the oppression of the weak members of
his
society.126 There
are a number of difficulties with Hollenbach's approach, but the
two most telling are that it is highly speculative,
and ultimately we would be
psychologizing about Jesus' state of mind. There is, in fact, no historical
evidence
of a particular sin for which Jesus needed to repent. The texts are silent.
Third, we could return to the
nature of John's baptism and investigate
further the character of repentance and confession of sin. This approach is
suggested by Meier and proves to be the most helpful way forward on this issue.
He points out that [c]onfession of sin in ancient
lengthy laundry-list of personal peccadilloes, with the result that worship of
God
was turned into a narcissistic reflection on the self. Confession of sin in
ancient
Confession of sin often meant recalling God's gracious deeds for an ungrateful
recounting of the infidelities and apostasies of
own day, and a final resolve to change and be different from one's ancestors.127
Meier points to the
prayers of confession by Ezra as well as prayers by the
initiates into the
are not for personal sins at all but for
This approach is further
supported by observing the character of John's
message. He was addressing all
to a radical reconstitution of
this is so, then John was calling for the people to respond to who they were as
a
nation, not really who they were as individuals. Of course, it was individuals
who
had to respond, and many could respond out of a personal sense of
responsibility
for
faithful could respond out of a belief in and desire for John's reconstituted
we can conclude that Jesus did indeed participate in John's baptism, and it was
for
him a baptism of repentance. Jesus was acknowledging
turn around, and he was committing himself to do what he could to bring this
about.
4.2. The Earliest
Stage of Jesus' Ministry
A second area
to be investigated is the implications of Jesus' baptism for
appreciating what the earliest stage of Jesus' ministry involved.130 I am
defining
this earliest stage as Jesus' ministry prior to the arrest of John the
Baptist.
Those who were baptized by
John became part of John's reconstituted
identified as followers of John. It would appear that John had two types of
29
IBR Studies
followers. First of all, there were those who were baptized and returned to
their
homes, though they were still part of the reconstituted true/remnant
formed through John's ministry. Second, there were those who were baptized and
remained with him to participate more fully in his program and to be taught by
him. John had disciples with whom he practiced fasting (Matt 9:14 = Mark 2:18 =
Luke 5:33) and whom he had taught to pray, perhaps in a distinctive fashion
(Luke
11:1). These disciples were with him (John 1:35; 3:25-26) and were available to
serve him (Matt 11:2 = Luke 7:18). Josephus may also have been referring to
these
disciples when he describes those who gathered around John as those who were
excited to the utmost by listening to his
teachings, and they seemed as if they
would do everything which he counselled (Ant. 18.118).131
Through his baptism
by John, Jesus was not only in agreement with John,
he was joining John's movement and becoming a follower of John. In the next
section we consider John 3 in greater detail, but it is sufficient at this
point to
observed that this text suggests that Jesus stayed
with John the Baptist for some
time. Therefore, of the two types of disciples John had, Jesus was one of those
who remained with John to participate fully in his program.132
This conclusion
raises at least one important question: Did Jesus participate
for a time in John's ministry and movement?133 The
Synoptic Gospels identify the
start of Jesus' public ministry as beginning after the arrest of John (Matt
4:12 =
Mark 1:14; cf. Luke 3:19; 4:14). But this leaves unexplained why Jesus remained
in Judea after being baptized, not returning to
from the Fourth Gospel helps to fill in this gap.135 John
3:22-24 describes Jesus'
going with his disciples into the Judean countryside, where he remained with
them
and baptized.136 John was
also baptizing nearby.
This brief scenario could be
interpreted in at least three different ways.
First, Jesus had a baptizing ministry with his own disciples
that was separate and
distinct from John's activities.137 Jesus
could even be understood to be competing
with John as a rival.138 Second,
Jesus' baptizing ministry may be understood as
aligned with John's in such a way that Jesus baptizes under the umbrella of
John's
baptizing movement.139 Third,
Jesus began baptizing in association with John (as
in the second alternative), but gradually they parted company over differences
(as
implied in the first alternative).140
Given the limited
data within the Fourth Gospel, choosing between these
alternatives is difficult but not impossible. Two preliminary observations may
be
made to guide the process. We must distinguish historical data contained in
this
text from what the fourth Evangelist is doing with this material and the
narrative
framework in which it is now found. Second, our understanding of the
relationship
between John and Jesus arising out this text must cohere with what we may
deduce from our other sources.
Applying these two
observations to the question at hand makes the second
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 30
alternative the most probable of the three. Separate activities and rivalry
(the first
alternative) might be implied by the statement that Jesus had his own disciples
(John 3:22; cf. 1:35-51) and the complaint about Jesus by John's disciples in
John
3:26. However, the reference in 3:22 to Jesus' having disciples may be the
result
of the Evangelist's editorial activity. It makes this text consistent with the
larger
narrative framework, especially the account in John 1 about John's disciples
leaving him to follow Jesus. On the other hand, having disciples per se does
not
preclude Jesus' activities from being part of John's movement. In fact, it is
eminently plausible for Jesus to have his own followers and to be baptizing in
a
separate location and yet to be associated with John's movement.141
Furthermore,
we should observe that any indication of separateness or rivalry in the Fourth
Gospel is only between some of their disciples, not between John and Jesus. The
Fourth Gospel portrays John in support of Jesus (3:27-30) and Jesus in support
of
John (4:1-3).
Finally, the statement in
3:22b-23a makes no distinction between the
activities of Jesus and John: Jesus was baptizing, and John was also baptizing
(e)ba&ptizen
h]n de\ kai\ o( I)wa&nnhj
bapti&zwn).
Jesus had, prior to this
point in time, been baptized by John (for the implication of this baptism, see
above). Subsequently he held the opinion that John was a prophet, that no one
was
greater than John (Matt 11:9-11 = Luke 7:26-28), and that John's baptism was
from God (Matt 21:24-27 = Mark 11:28-33 = Luke 20:2-8). Jesus' own baptizing
ministry, therefore, must be seen in continuity with what precedes it (i.e.,
his own
baptism) and what follows it (i.e., his high opinion of John). Therefore, to
read
into this text that Jesus was engaging in a baptizing ministry separate from
and in
opposition to John's movement may be an attempt to preserve a distinctive Jesus
similar to the attempt by the Evangelist himself.142
Therefore, of the
three alternatives listed above, the second alternative is to
be preferred over the first. But what about the third alternative, which
asserted that
Jesus began baptizing in association with John but that later they parted ways
in
disagreement? This alternative is to be distinguished from later
differences
between Jesus and John as found in the Synoptic Gospels (e.g., Matt 11:16-19 =
Luke 7:31-35; see below). The focus of this alternative is the relationship
between
John and Jesus while both engaged in baptizing ministries. Growing tension and
disagreement between them at this point in their ministries is an assertion
based
primarily on interpreting John 3:25 ("Now a discussion arose between John's
disciples and a Jew concerning purification" [meta\
I)oudai&ou peri\
kaqrismou=]
as a reference to a debate between John's disciples and Jesus or
one of Jesus' disciples. This is one possible conclusion given the context. But
it
could also refer to a more generic debate between members of various religious
movements in this wilderness area who emphasized the role of ablutions for
purification.143 In light
of the ambiguity of the text, no alternative can command
31
IBR Studies
high probability. But perhaps a third alternative is more likely than the
others. It is
based on observing that the issue of the debate is defined as purification
(kaqarismo&j). Elsewhere in the
Fourth Gospel, this term is used for the traditional
Jewish rites of cleansing (John 2:6). This usage is reflected in similar
contexts in
the Synoptic Gospels.144 But in
no other text anywhere is this term used of John's
baptism. What is more likely, then, is that the debate concerned a more
traditional
view of Jewish purification or purification rites versus the way that John's
baptism
functioned.145 If so,
then it is unlikely that the debate was between John's disciples
and Jesus or Jesus' disciples.
Within this broader context of
debate (John 3:25), we are introduced to the
specific problem that John's disciples had with Jesus (3:26). This next verse
states
that John's disciples came and complained to John about Jesus. Sometimes the
assumption is made that the disciples' complaint about Jesus arose out of the
debate in the preceding verse. Charles Scobie, who is a proponent of this
interpretation, proposes emending meta\ I)oudai&ou
to meta\ I)hsou= or meta\
tw=n I)hsou= to support this interpretation.146 However,
while 3:25 may be vague,
this ingenious textual emendation remains pure speculation. This view must
remain conjectural, as Scobie admits: "we may conjecture that Jesus and his
disciples were not strict enough [concerning rites of ritual purity] for John's
liking."147 The next
pericope (3:26-30) does in fact make specific the nature of the
complaint by John's disciples: more people are going to Jesus to be baptized
than
to John (3:27; cf. 4:1). While this could have given rise to division between
the
two, this text portrays John and Jesus as refusing to make this an issue (3:27-30;
4:1-3). This is consistent with the portrayal of their relationship in the
Synoptic
Gospels.
To summarize, Jesus was
baptized by John and probably remained with
him for some time in the role of disciple. Later, in alignment and
participation
with John and his movement, Jesus also engaged in a baptizing ministry near
John.
Although he was still a disciple of John, Jesus perhaps should be viewed at
this
point as John's right-hand man or proteg.148 While
tensions may have arisen
between John's disciples and those around Jesus, the two men viewed themselves
as working together. Only later, after the arrest of John, did a shift take
place in
which Jesus moved beyond the conceptual framework of John's movement in
certain respects. Yet Jesus always appears appreciative of the foundation that
John's framework initially provided for him.
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 32
4.3. The
Ideological Framework for the Earliest Stage of Jesus'
Ministry and Extrapolations to His Later Ministry
I continue to
use the term earliest stage to identify the period of Jesus' ministry
prior to the arrest of John. By later ministry I refer to Jesus'
ministry after John's
arrest--the ministry that is the focus of the Gospel narratives.
In being baptized by John,
Jesus indicated his essential agreement with
John's message. Presumably he heard John himself proclaim his message. To
summarize the discussion above, John announced that
had sinned and gone astray, and so they were facing the imminent,
eschatological
judgment of God. To be saved from this judgment, the people had to change
fundamentally inwardly and outwardly (i.e., repentance understood as
conversion)
and to express this repentance by receiving his baptism. Those who responded
with repentance and baptism would be saved from the imminent judgment and
would participate in the eschatological reconstitution of the true/remnant
brought about by God's coming representative, whose arrival is imminent.
Jesus, at least at this point
in his life, is essentially in agreement with
John.149 While
such a conclusion is hardly startling, it does bring with it a number
of implications concerning the ideological framework that characterized the
beginning of Jesus' ministry. First of all, it implies that Jesus began his
ministry
with an ideological framework of an eschatology characterized by imminent
judgment and restoration. While it is quite plausible that Jesus' eschatology
would
change and develop beyond this point (and evidence suggests that it probably
did),
a historical portrait that paints a noneschatological Jesus150 is quite
implausible,
especially in light of the pervasive elements of eschatological thought in the
Gospel portraits of the later ministry of Jesus.151
Second, it implies
that Jesus' ministry began within an ideological
framework of re-visioning
participates in John's baptism in agreement with John's re-visioning of
This suggests that an examination of Jesus' later ministry may reveal a similar
concern for reconstituting
different from John's. One example of this concern in the later ministry of
Jesus is
Jesus' choosing of the Twelve,
symbolic of the twelve tribes of
10:1-4 = Mark 3:13-19a = Luke 6:12-16; cf. Mark 6:6b-7 = Luke 9:1-2; Matt
19:28 = Luke 22:28-30).152
Third, Jesus'
essential agreement with John at the beginning of his ministry
implies that judgment and restoration and the re-visioning of
effected through divine participation. John
articulated God's involvement in two
ways: an expected figure and a holy spirit. In Jesus' later ministry, the
Spirit
certainly plays a key role in his thought (e.g., Matt 12:28 = Luke 11:20; Luke
33
IBR Studies
4:18-21).153 And, of
course, the role of an expected figure in Jesus' thought has
many entry points for exploration, for the term Son of Man to that of Messiah.
Recent scholarly debate has explored the historicity, meaning, and possible
implications for Jesus' self-understanding, and further development here is far
beyond our scope. The two points to note here are, first of all that, whatever
Jesus'
views on these matters later in his ministry, they were originally shaped by
his
involvement with John the Baptist. Second, in his later ministry, Jesus
understood
that he himself had a role in the judgment and restoration and revisioning of
and one way that this self-understanding could be expressed is in relation to
John's
original expectation. Jesus' response to John's question from prison (Matt 11:2-6
= Luke 7:18-23) suggests a continued relationship with John's expectation and
yet
clear development beyond it.154
What I am arguing
here is that it is appropriate to extrapolate from the
ideological framework of John's ministry to the earliest stage of Jesus'
ministry
and then beyond, to later points in Jesus' ministry. This latter extrapolation
is
appropriate for, in his later ministry, Jesus maintains a high opinion of John
(e.g.,
Matt 11:7-15 = Luke 7:24-30) and defends his own ministry based upon the fact
that John's baptism was of God (Matt 21:33-37 = Mark 11:27-33 = Luke 20:1-8).
4.4. The
Possible Association of the Theophany Narrative
with Jesus' Baptism
In the first
part of this essay, I concluded that the baptism of Jesus by John is
historically very probable, to the point of being virtually certain.
Also it is
probable that Jesus did experience at some time a prophetic call-vision,
but there
are problems with directly associating the former with the latter, for there is
some
evidence to suggest that originally they were two separate events. If so, then
either
Jesus later told his disciples about the early experiences that brought the two
together, or early Christians used the prophetic call-vision to interpret the
baptism.
It was, therefore, preferable methodologically to examine Jesus' baptism apart
from the possible association with the prophetic call-vision of the theophany
narrative.
I should make clear from the
earlier discussion that I consider it probable
that Jesus did experience some form of prophetic call-vision and that it likely
involved the components associated with the theophany narrative. The difficulty
was not with the event itself but with the two events having to take place at
the
same time and the fact that, therefore, the baptism had to be understood in
light of
the theophany. I did say, however, that we would return to make a couple of
brief
observations on the baptism if it was associated with the theophany, and
this is
where we now proceed.155
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 34
First of all, the
association of the two impacts the discussion above
concerning the implications of Jesus' baptism. For example, it strengthens the
first
point made above, that Jesus' baptism was the turning point in Jesus' life--from
peasant artisan to public ministry. If at his baptism Jesus also experienced a
prophetic call-vision, then this event is even more decisive in Jesus' life. As
well,
the earlier discussion of Jesus' baptizing within John's movement portrays
Jesus
as a disciple of John, working under John.
However, if Jesus experienced the
prophetic call-vision at the same time, and if it included the elements of
divine
sonship and spirit-anointing, then the period during which Jesus was baptizing
should perhaps be understood as alongside
John.156
Second, if the content
of the prophetic call-vision included a reference to
divine sonship and an experience of the spirit, then the theophany is related
conceptually to John's own prophetic announcements. John announced an
expected figure who would baptize with a holy spirit
and fire. Both elements in the
theophany are related: the announcement of divine sonship may be linked to the
expected figure that John proclaimed, and the baptizing with a holy spirit was
linked to Jesus' own spirit-anointing. At this point, Jesus was not baptizing
with a
holy spirit; rather, he was himself anointed. Perhaps the implication is that
the one
who would ultimately baptize others must himself first be baptized by that same
spirit.
Third, the prophetic
call-vision and its dual elements of divine sonship and
spirit-anointing can themselves be explored for their implications for
understanding the ministry of Jesus. The announcement of divine sonship could
be
explored for the implications it would have for the self-understanding of Jesus'
his
sense of having a special relationship with God as father and his role within
the
plans and purposes of God for
otherwise).157 The
divine anointing by the spirit the action
that confirmed and
empowered the divine announcement could be explored for the implications it
also had for Jesus' self-understanding. However, with these issues we are
moving
beyond specifically exploring Jesus' baptism itself, which is beyond the scope
of
this essay.
5.
Conclusion
In this essay I
have argued that, within the realms of historical probability, Jesus
was baptized by John the Baptist. As such, the baptism was for Jesus a significant
turning point in his life, from his former life as a peasant artisan in
life of ministry. By responding to John's message to the nation of
called
acknowledging
John's vision of a reconstituted
35
IBR Studies
prepared for imminent divine judgment and would participate in God's
eschatological restoration and blessing. Jesus thus begins his ministry within
an
ideological framework marked by this eschatological orientation. For the
earliest
part of this ministry, Jesus was involved with John and his program. He
remained
with John as one of his disciples and participated with John in a baptizing
ministry.
The theophany narrative,
though linked in the texts with Jesus' baptism,
may have taken place at a later point in time. Best understood as a prophetic
call-
vision, this event is also historically likely but with less probability than
the
baptism itself. There is, however, a possibility that it did take place at the
same
time as Jesus' baptism. If so, it adds new components to the significance of
the
event, but it does not materially alter the conclusions drawn about the baptism
itself.
Jesus' later ministry
manifests some differences from and developments
beyond what has been presented here.158 But this
later ministry also demonstrates
significant points of continuity. The later ministry of Jesus must be
understood
along a trajectory that begins with John the Baptist and ends with the early
Church. As such, therefore, Jesus' baptism by John and its implications make a
sig-nificant contribution to our understanding of the historical Jesus.
Author's note: This
essay was the focus of discussion at the inaugural
meeting of the Institute for Biblical Research Jesus Group in
1999. It has been revised and expanded in light of two days of extremely
helpful
discussion among the members of the Jesus Group. I am indebted to each of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 For example, E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 11; J. D. Crossan,
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean
Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins,
1991) 234.
2 A notable exception is J. P. Meier, A
Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York:
Doubleday, 1991-94) 2.100-105.
3 In this discussion I assume a two-source
hypothesis for the Synoptic Gospels. While aware of its
problems and alternatives, I find the two-source hypothesis the most plausible,
and it continues to
find considerable scholarly support. For recent discussion, see C. M. Tuckett, The Revival of the
Griesbach Hypothesis (SNTSMS 44; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983);
R. H.
Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1987).
4 I
use the convention of the SBL Q Seminar in citing Q texts by their Lukan
reference; e.g., Q
3:16 = Matt 3:11 = Luke 3:16.
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 36
5 The Q source is frequently identified as a Sayings Gospel, but this is strictly
speaking not true, at
least in an exclusive sense. Texts that are widely recognized as part of Q are
narrative material.
Three of the more prominent ones are Q 7:1-10 (healing the centurion's servant);
Q 7:18-23
(John's inquiry of Jesus); Q 11:14-23 (the Beelzebul accusation).
6 Scholars of Q differ on this question. J. S.
Kloppenborg (The Formation of Q [Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1987] 84-85) does not include the baptismal account in his
reconstruction of Q. For
bibliographic references supporting and rejecting this position, see J. S.
Kloppenborg, Q Parallels
(Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1988) 16.
7 For a helpful survey of the debate, see G. R.
Beasley-Murray, John (WBC 36; Waco, Tex.:
Word, 1987) xxxv-xxxvii. While most scholars do conclude that the Fourth Gospel
is
independent of the Synoptics, two scholars who hold to a minority view on the
subject are C. K.
Barrett and F. Neirynck.
8 There are also other extracanonical references to
John the Baptist, but they do not refer to Jesus'
baptism. These include: Josephus, Ant. 18.116-19; Prot. Jas. 8:3;
10:2; 12:2-3; 22:3; 23:1-24:4;
PCairo 2; GEbion 2-3; GThom 46, 47, 78, 104; cf. GThom
11, 27, 51. Later traditions may also
be found in Gnostic literature, Mandaean literature, and the Slavonic Josephus.
See the discussion
in R. L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-historical Study
(JSNTSup 62; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 43-45, 77-78 n. 93.
9 This text and translation are cited from A. F.
J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition
(VCSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 98.
10 The independent witness of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews is maintained by Klijn, ibid.,
36-37; E. Hennecke, W. Schneemelcher, and R. McL. Wilson (eds.), New
Testament Apocrypha
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963-65) 1.159; R. Cameron (ed.), The Other
Gospels: Non-
canonical Gospel Texts (Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1982) 84.
11 This
text and translation are cited from Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition,
98. In the
translation, I have replaced archaic language with modern equivalents and added
quotation marks.
I have also added verse numbers to make references easier in the discussion
below.
12 The dependence of the Gospel according to the
Ebionites upon the canonical Gospels is held by
Klijn, ibid., 38; Hennecke, Schneemelcher, and Wilson, New Testament
Apocrypha, 1.155;
Cameron, Other Gospels, 103.
13 An alternative spelling for the name of this
Gospel is Nazoreans.
14 Hennecke, Schneemelcher, and Wilson (New
Testament Apocrypha, 1.146) and Cameron
Other Gospels, 97) conclude that the Gospel according to theNazareans
is a secondary expansion
of Matthew, whereas Klijn (Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, 37) concludes
that this Gospel
originated in an environment in which traditions used by the Gospel of Matthew
were known but
that such traditions had a different development.
15 Crossan's discussion (Historical Jesus,
234) adds Ignatius as another independent witness; see
Ign. Smyrn. 1:1; Ign. Eph. 18:2.
37
IBR Studies
16 A second issue could also be raised at this
point: Is literary independence the same as historical
independence? Just because these four sources are independent on a literary
level, they are not
necessarily part of a totally independent historical tradition, for they could
still be expressions of
the same presynoptic stream of tradition. However, since we are limited to the
one extant
description of the event, this is an issue that can be set aside at this point.
17 Meier, Marginal Jew, 1.168?71.
18 The main clause is )Ege&neto a)new=|xqh=nai to\n ou)rano\n
kai\ katabh=nai to\ pneu=ma to\
a#gion.
This intervening e)n tw|= + infinitive phrase and a genitive absolute set the time
reference
for the theophany. This could be translated literally as It happened that, when all the people had
been baptized, and Jesus had been baptized and was praying, the heaven opened
and the Holy
Spirit came down.
19 How John recognizes Jesus in this manner is not
explained and is somewhat problematic. In
Matthew's Gospel the voice from heaven is not addressed to Jesus (not "you are
my Son") but to
someone else (rather, "This is my Son"), evidently John and/or the crowds. But
the exchange
between John and Jesus takes place prior
to the declaration of the voice from heaven. So how
John has the knowledge to make his request of Jesus is unknown.
20 Compare the combination of Luke's and Matthew's
emphases in GEbion 4.
21 To
cite a few particularly influential perspectives: Sanders (Jesus and Judaism,
11) lists Jesus'
baptism by John as one of the almost
indisputable facts about the life of Jesus. Crossan
(Historical Jesus, 234) concludes that "Jesus' baptism by John is one of the surest things we
know about them both." The Jesus Seminar (R. W. Funk [ed.], The Acts of
Jesus: The Search for
the Authentic Deeds of Jesus [San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1998] 54)
considered the description
in Mark 1:9 of Jesus' baptism by John to be worthy of a red vote (77% red; 18%
pink; 5% grey;
0% black; average .91). Cf. W. B. Tatum, John the Baptist and Jesus: A
Report of the Jesus
Seminar (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1994) 148.
22 Morton S. Enslin, John and Jesus, ZNW 66 (1975) 1-18. Cf. also Ernst Haenchen,
Der Weg
Jeu: Eine ErkliVrung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen
(2d ed.;
de Gruyter, 1968) 58-63.
23 Enslin, John
and Jesus, 2-4, quote from p. 2.
24 Ibid., 5-6.
25 Ibid., 6-7.
26 For further development, see Webb, John the
Baptizer, 373-77; J. E. Taylor, The Immerser:
John the Baptist within Second-Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1997) 213-59.
27 This
orientation may be seen, for example, in Josephus' extremely negative portrayal
of the
various prophetic movements in the Second-Temple period, whose eschatological
features he
scorned (e.g., J.W. 2.259;
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 38
around the
Time of Jesus," CBQ 46 (1984) 471-95; R. A. Horsley and J. A. Hanson, Bandits,
Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus
(Minneapolis: Winston, 1985)
88-134, 160-89; Webb, John the Baptizer, 310-12, 333-48.
28 So W. G. Kmmel, Promise and Fulfillment: The
Eschatological Message of Jesus (trans. D. M.
Barton; London: SCM, 1958) 110-11; M. Dibelius, Die urchristliche
berlieferung von Johannes
dem Tufer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911) 33-39; J. D. G.
Dunn, Jesus and the
Spirit (London: SCM, 1975) 55-60; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according
to Luke (AB 28; 2
vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981-85) 1.662-64; against M. Goguel, Au
Seuil de
L'Evangile: Jean Baptiste (Paris; Bayot, 1928) 60-63; C. H. Kraeling, John
the Baptist (New
York: Scribner's, 1953) 130-31; Walter Wink, "Jesus Reply to John: Matt 11:2-6//
Luke 7:18-
23," Forum 5 (1989) 121-28. Cf. the discussion in my John the
Baptizer, 278-82.
29 It is interesting that Crossan (Historical
Jesus), for whom multiple attestation is a
paramount
criterion, rejects the theophany out of hand as theological damage control (p. 232) and yet
maintains that Jesus baptism by John
is one of the surest things we know about them both (p.
234).
30 In Mark, our earliest usable account (Q being
earlier but not sufficiently reconstructable to use
separately from Mark), the theophany also functions as the first half of an
inclusio that frames the
Gospel of Mark at a narrative level. The second half of the inclusio is the
account of Jesus--
crucifixion. For discussion, see D. Ulansey, "The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark's
Cosmic Inclusio,"
JBL 110 (1991) 123-25. Cf. S. Motyer, "The Rending of the Veil: A Markan
Pentecost," NTS 33
(1987) 155-57.
31 Crossan, Historical
Jesus, 232.
32 Cf. the full elucidation of this midrash by Meier, Marginal Jew, 2.106-7.
33 The historicity of these two components is
widely recognized by scholars, though opinions will
differ on specific texts. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 11-67; N. T.
Wright, Christian Origins and
the Question of God, vol. 2: Jesus and the Victory of God
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 648-53.
Cf. G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973).
34 For a description of this criterion, see Meier, Marginal
Jew, 1.176-77.
35 James Dunn (Jesus and the Spirit, 63; cf.
62-65) states: "it is certain that Jesus believed himself
to be empowered by the Spirit and thought of himself as God's son. These
convictions must have
crystallized at some point in his life. Why should the traditions unanimously
fasten on this
episode in Jesus' life if they had no reason for making the link and many
reasons against it."
36 John
Meier (Marginal Jew, 2.108) counters: "To be sure, the narrative
encapsulates nicely two
main themes of Jesus' preaching and praxis. But what else would we expect from
a Christian
narrative that sought to supply an initial definition of who Jesus is" His
objection does not,
however, address the coherence these two themes have with the ministry of
Jesus. In fact, Meier
(p. 108) affirms that, prior to beginning his ministry,
Jesus no doubt developed intellectually and
experienced existentially these key insights into his relationship
39
IBR Studies
with God as his Father and the powerful activity of the spirit manifest in his
own life. Indeed, it is
possible that the crystallization of these key themes may have had something to
do with Jesus'
own parting company with John. But to be any more specific about exactly when
and how this
happened (e.g., at the moment of his baptism) risks going beyond reasonable
inference from the
data and falling into the psychologizing of Jesus practiced by the old liberal lives. I beg to differ:
affirming the historicity of an experience that has been stated in the text is
not psychologizing at
all. Psychological speculation on why he had the experience (e.g., the
death of his father at a
young age created a need for a father
figure) would be psychologizing, and this should be
rejected. Meier, however, throws the baby out with the bath water on this point.
37 Cf. M. J. Borg, Jesus' A
New Vision: Spirit, Culture and the Life of Discipleship (San
Francisco: HarperCollins, 1987) 40-42; Wright, Victory of God, 536-37;
B. Witherington, The
Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 148-49. Joel Marcus ("Jesus
Baptismal
Vision," NTS 41 [1995] 512-21) in a very interesting paper also calls
into question the specific
content of the theophany (the descent of the Spirit and the designation of
Jesus as God's son). But
he goes on to observe that Jesus possessed
a strong sense of prophetic authority. Such a sense
of prophetic authority does not come out of nowhere; it almost demands a
radical experience of
divine encounter to explain its existence (p. 513). He suggests that Jesus did,
in fact, experience a
prophetic call-vision but proposes that its content was instead another
visionary experience that
Jesus narrates: "I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning"
(Luke 10:18). This is
certainly a promising suggestion and worthy of consideration. I would, however,
propose that it
could just as easily be incorporated as an additional part of Jesus' prophetic
call-vision
along with the Spirit's descent and the designation as God's son, rather than
replacing them.
38 A few of the many discussions concerning this
issue include L. E. Keck, "The Spirit and the
Dove," NTS 17 (1970) 41-67; S. Gero, "The Spirit as a Dove at the
Baptism of Jesus," NovT 18
(1976) 17-35; P. Garnet, "The Baptism of Jesus and the Son of Man Idea," JSNT
9 (1980) 49-65;
D. C. Allison, Jr., "The Baptism of Jesus and a New Dead Sea Scroll," BARev
(Mar-Apr 1992)
58-60; R. S. Poon, "The Background to the Dove Imagery in the Story of Jesus'
Baptism," Jian
Dao 3 (1995) 33-49; R. A. Campbell, "Jesus and His Baptism," TynBul
47 (1996) 204-9; L. E.
Vaage, "Bird-Watching at the Baptism of Jesus: Early Christian Mythmaking in
Mark 1:9-11," in
Reimagining Christian Origins: A Colloquium Honoring Burton L. Mack (ed.
E. A. Castelli and
H. Taussig; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity, 1996) 280-94. See also the survey of
alternatives
presented by W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the
Gospel according to Saint Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988)
1.331-34.
39 For discussion of this criterion, see Meier, Marginal
Jew, 1.171-74. I am indebted to Craig A.
Evans for this suggestion. See his discussion of this criterion in "Authenticity
Criteria in Life of
Jesus Research," Christian Scholar?s Review 19
(1989) 15-16, 25-27.
40 For further discussion of the implications of
the account in the Fourth Gospel, see below. For
an exploration of the temporal separation of the baptism from the prophetic call-vision,
see my
earlier discussion, "John the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesus," in Studying
the Historical
Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (ed. B. Chilton and C.
A. Evans; NTTS 19;
41 This section is a slight revision of part of my
earlier essay, ibid., 187-210. It is used with the
permission of the editors.
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 40
42 Idem, John the Baptizer.
43 It is independently attested in several sources:
Matt 3:11 = Luke 3:16; Mark 1:4; John 1:25;
Josephus,
44 John is so identified in several independent
sources: e.g., Matt 11:18 = Luke 7:33; Mark 1:4;
GThom 46; Josephus,
45 Mark 1:4 = Luke 3:6; Josephus,
46 Cf. the expression e)n tw|= potamw|= in Mark 1:5 and e)k tou= u#datoj in Mark 1:10, which
suggests that bathing was the form that John's baptism took. Furthermore, the
verb bapti&zw and
the nouns ba&ptisma and baptismo&j, used of John's
baptism, are not the usual terms for a
Jewish ritual bath (exceptions are Mark 7:4; Luke 11:38; Heb 9:10). The verb
signifies to dip, to
immerse, to plunge into, or to submerge. BAGD, 131; LSJ, 305-6; A.
Oepke, "Ba&ptw,
ktl.," TDNT 1.529-38.
G. R. Beasley-Murray ("Baptism, Wash," NIDNTT 1.143) points out that
the verb lou&w is the most common verb
used for complete washing or bathing, while ni&ptw is
used for partial washing, such as handwashing.
47 E.g., Leviticus 14-15; 16:4, 24; Sir 34:25
(31:25); Tob (BA) 2:5; Tob (S) 2:9; T. Levi 2:3B 1-2;
9:11; Jub. 21:16a; As. Mos. 9.4:13; Sib. Or. 4:165; Apoc.
Mos. 29:11-13; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.198,
203, 282; Life 11-12; J.W. 2.129-32, 149-50; Ant. 3.263;
18.36-38; Philo, Spec. 1.119, 269; Deus
7-8; CD 10:10-13; 11:1, 21:22; 1QS 3:4-9; 11QTemple 45:7-10.
48 Lev 14:5-6, 50-52; 15:13; Num 19:17; Deut 21:4;
cf. m. Miqw. 1:6-8.
49 T. Levi 2:3B2; Sib. Or. 4:165-67; Apoc. Mos.
29:11-13. Cf. the discussion of these texts in my
John the Baptizer, 116-22.
50 For an examination of the relationship between
the Jordan River and the wilderness, see R. W.
Funk, "The Wilderness," JBL 78 (1959) 205-14.
51 E.g., Josephus, J.W.
2.259, 261-62;
Prophets of Old: Two Types of Popular Prophets at the Time of Jesus," CBQ
47 (1985) 457-58; J.
Ernst, Johannes der Tufer: Interpretation Geschichte Wirkungsgeschichte
(BZNW 53; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1989) 278-84; Webb, John the Baptizer, 335-39.
52 Cf.
my John the Baptizer, 181-83, 360-66.
53 The term conversionary
repentance expresses John's continuity with the Hebrew Bible's
prophetic call to return (bw#&) to Yahweh, as
exemplified in Isa 30:15; Ezek 18:30-32. J. Behm
and E. Würthwein (noe&w,
klt., TDNT 4.980-99)
distinguish between this prophetic emphasis and
repentance associated with ritual expressions of penitence, such as fasting or
sackcloth and ashes.
Cf. F. Laubach and J. Goetzmann, "Conversion," NIDNTT 1.353-59; W. L.
Holladay, The Root
Subh in the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1958) 116-57.
41
IBR Studies
54 Ernst (Johannes der Tufer, 68) argues on
the basis of the phrase ei)j
meta&noian in
Matt 3:11
that conversionary repentance is God's act when a person is baptized, but this
is unconvincing.
The phrase is better understood to be Matthew's redaction, linking repentance
to baptism at this
point in the text because it had been removed earlier (cf. the use of Mark 1:4
in Matt 3:2). Cf.
Ernst, Johannes der Tufer, 334.
55 R. A. Guelich, Mark (WBC 34A; Dallas:
Word, 1989) 1.18-19. The conceptual possibility of
linking conversionary repentance with an immersion rite may have been provided
by Isa 1:16-17
as well as the example of Naaman in 2 Kgs 5:10, 14-17. The idea is clearly
expressed in Second-
Temple Jewish literature; e.g., 1QS 3:6-9; T. Levi 2:3B; Sib. Or.
4:162-70.
56 This function is described as understood from
the perspective of John and his followers. Others
may have perceived John's baptism in quite different terms. For example, the
probably viewed John's baptism as cheap
grace.
57 A relationship between repentance, an immersion,
and forgiveness is also expressed in T. Levi
2:3B; Sib. Or. 4:162-70; 1QS 3:6-9. Cf. the discussion in my John the
Baptizer, 207-13.
58 This interpretation is corroborated by
understanding the preposition ei)j in the phrase ei)j
a)fesin a)martinw=n to be expressing the
purpose or goal of the repentance-baptism--that is, with
a view to forgiveness of sins. At this point the NT evidence is in tension
with Josephus' statement
that John's baptism was not for seeking
pardon of certain sins but for purification of the body,
because the soul had already been cleansed before by righteousness (
discussion, see my John the Baptizer, 165-68, 190-92.
59 Cf. L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament
(trans. J. E. Alsup;
1981) 1.36; Becker, Johannes der Tufer und Jesus von Nazareth (Biblische
Studien 63; Zrich:
Neukirchener, 1972) 38-40. This suggests that prophetic symbolism may have
played a part in
John's role in performing the baptism; cf. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in
the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962) 43; C. H. H. Scobie, John the Baptist
(London: SCM, 1964)
113; Ernst, Johannes der Tufer, 332-34.
60 See the discussion below.
61 Cf. the discussion in my John the Baptizer,
165-68, 194-95.
62 In the Hebrew Bible the use of ablutions
functioned as part of a large structure involving
cleanness and uncleanness. This structure is not concerned with physical
cleanliness but with the
status resulting from contact with a source of impurity (e.g., a contagion such
as a corpse
[Numbers 19] or discharges [Leviticus 15]) and the necessary cleansing to
restore to a state of
cleanness. Two different forms of contagion may make a person unclean: (1)
physical contagion,
such as leprosy (Leviticus 14) or discharges (Leviticus 15), and (2) moral
contagion, such as
sexual immorality (Leviticus 18). These are not two forms of uncleanness but
only two types of
contagion. The terminology of ablutions is also used metaphorically to refer to
cleansing from
sin, but an actual immersion does not seem to be in view (e.g., Ps 51:2, 7; Isa
1:16-17; Ezek 16:4,
9). For further discussion, see J. Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient
Judaism (SJLA 1;
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 42
Brill, 1973); D. P. Wright, The Disposal of
Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite
and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987).
Helpful summaries
include D. P. Wright, "Unclean and Clean (OT)," ABD 6.729-41; G. J.
Wenham, The Book of
Leviticus (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 15-29. Cf. my John the
Baptizer, 96-108.
63 Cf. the parallel between John's baptism and the
expected figure's baptism, and the description
of the expected figure, who is described in the imagery of the threshing floor
as one who will
"clean the threshing floor" (diakaqa&riei=; Matt 3:12 = Luke 3:17).
64 Cf. Sib. Or. 4:162-70; T. Levi
2:3B1-14; Apoc. Mos. 29:11-13; 1QS 3:6-9; 5:13-14. Cf. my
John the Baptizer, 108-32.
65 Cf. the emphasis on using rivers or running
water with respect to immersions that express
repentance in T. Levi 2:3B2; Sib. Or. 4:165; Apoc. Mos. 29:12-13.
66 The Hebrew Bible expresses the hope for a
greater eschatological ablution in Ezek 36:25-26;
cf. Isa 4:4; Joel 3:18; Zech 13:1; 14:8; Mal 3:2-3. Cf. the language used of
the
community's own ablutions in 1QS 3:6-9 and the eschatological expectation of a
final ablution in
1QS 4:19-22.
67 Cf. Goppelt, Theology, 1.37?38; Ernst, Johannes der Tufer, 333.
68 Cf. C. J. Bleeker (ed.), Initiation
(NumenSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1965).
69 E.g., Becker, Johannes der Tufer, 38?40. Ernst (Johannes der Tufer, 340) and Goppelt
(Theology, 1.35) understand John's baptism to create a separation but
fail to recognize the
corporate implications of this. Others who reject the interpretation of John's
baptism as an
initiatory rite include Kraeling, John the Baptist, 119-20; H. Thyen, "BAPTIZMA
METANOIAS
EIS AFESIN AMARTIWN" in The Future of Our Religious Past: Essays in Honour
of Rudolf
Bultmann (trans. C. E. Carlston and R. P. Scharlemann; ed. J. M. Robinson;
London: SCM, 1971)
132-33 n. 6. Examples of those who support an initiatory function for John's
baptism include
Scobie, John the Baptist, 114-16; O. Cullmann, "The Significance of the
Qumran Texts for
Research into the Beginnings of Christianity," in The Scrolls and the New
Testament (ed. K.
Stendahl; London: SCM, 1958) 215; Goguel, Jean-Baptiste, 291; B. Reicke,
"John's Baptism," in
Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church: Essays in honor of William R. Farmer
(ed. E. P. Sanders;
Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987) 214-19. Whether an immersion had an
initiatory
function within the
3:9; 5:7-15 do support this function; for discussion and relevant literature,
see my John the
Baptizer, 133-62. Also related is the question of whether Jewish proselyte
baptism (an initiatory
rite) predated John-s baptism or whether it is in fact a post-70 CE phenomenon.
The latter
position best accounts for the evidence. Cf. D. Smith, "Jewish
Proselyte Baptism and the Baptism
of John," ResQ 25 (1982) 13-32; Webb, John the Baptizer, 122-30.
70 Cf. B. F. Meyer, The
Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979) 233-34.
71 E.g., Becker, Johannes der Tufer, 38-39.
43
IBR Studies
72 BAGD, 787; LSJ, 1705; cf. the only NT use of
this verb in Luke 8:4.
73 Cf. su&neimi in Josephus, J.W. 1.129; 4.132. For a
discussion of these texts and their relation to
sta&sij ("strife"), see my John
the Baptizer, 199-201.
74 For further development and argumentation, see
my John the Baptizer, 199-200.
75 Cf. Luke 1:17, which describes John as one who
was "to make ready for the Lord a prepared
people." Matthew Black (The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the
Jewish Background of
the New Testament [BJS 48; New York: Scribner's, 1961] 97) compares the
self- understanding
of the Qumran community and John the Baptist at this point as being the
formation of "a new
Covenanted Israel" or "the new
76 Cf. Craig A. Evans, "Jesus' Action in the
Century
Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 522-39. An implicit link between criticism
of the
the use of immersions for forgiveness may also be observed in the Qumran
community's criticism
of the
77 For a defense of this position, particularly
with respect to the Matthean reference to
"Sadducees," see my John the Baptizer, 175-78.
78 For further development of this function, see ibid., 203-5. Few other scholars recognize this
function. Thyen (BAPTISMA, 151) goes no further than to describe John's baptism
as "a polemic
substitute for temple-sacrifice." Kraeling (John the Baptist, 15-27)
attributes John's wilderness
existence to "some bitter experience" (p. 16) that, as a rural priest, had
alienated him from the
temple establishment. Cf. E. Linnemann, "Jesus und der Tufer," in Festschrift
für Ernst Fuchs
(ed. G. Ebeling, E. Jngel, and G. Schunack; Tübingen: Mohr, 1972) 228; B.
Witherington,
"'Jesus and the Baptist' Two of a Kind," in Society of Biblical Literature
1988 Seminar Papers
(SBLSP 27; ed. D. J. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 228.
79 Luke 7:26 = Matt 11:9; Mark 11:32 = Matt 21:26 =
Luke 20:6. Josephus' description of John as
one "who exhorted the Jews" and had "great persuasiveness with the people" (
is consistent with the role of prophet. Josephus does not explicitly identify
John as a prophet.
While he presented John primarily from a positive perspective, Josephus was
very negative about
those who claimed to be prophets during the Second-Temple period, especially
those who were
popular prophets (i.e., those whose ministry was involved primarily with the
common people--the
peasants). Cf. my John the Baptizer, 307-17, 333-42, esp. 308 n. 4.
80 John is sometimes characterized as being a
prophet of judgment only (e.g., Becker, Johannes
der Tufer, 38-39), but this characterization ignores the restorative
implications of the expected
figure's baptizing with a holy spirit and of the clause "he will gather the
wheat into his granary"
(Luke 3:17). Furthermore, it fails to appreciate the prophetic dynamic that the
announcement of
judgment and call to repentance has as its necessary corollary the hope of some
form of
restoration or blessing; otherwise the call to repentance is meaningless.
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 44
81 It is sometimes argued that pneu=ma should be translated "wind"
rather than "spirit." For
advocates of this view, see E. Best, "Spirit-Baptism," NovT 4 (1960) 236-43.
This is usually
argued on the basis that "holy" is a Christian interpolation into John's use of
the term pneu=ma,
and that the imagery of wind is implied in John's picture of winnowing at the
threshing floor.
However, the evidence for the first claim is inadequate, particularly if the
term "holy spirit" is
understood in light of Jewish description and expectation as "a spirit of
holiness." The second
point of incorrect, for pneu=ma is neither mentioned in
the picture of the threshing floor,
nor is the picture actually describing winnowing at all, and so wind is not
even implied. For
further discussion, see my John the Baptizer, 275-77, 295-97; idem, "The
Activity of John the
Baptist's Expected Figure at the Threshing Floor (Matthew 3.12 = Luke 3.17)," JSNT
43 (1991)
103-11.
82 The figure in Dan 7:14 is
described as being "like a son of man" and is not identified by the
title "Son of Man." However, the Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) indicate that by the first
century the description of Daniel's human-like figure had been transformed into the title
used to
describe a supernatural figure of judgment
and restoration, at least in one line of interpretation.
For discussion of the extensive research into the Son of Man, see C. C.
Caragounis, The Son of
Man: Vision and Interpretation (WUNT 38; Tübingen: Mohr, 1986) 9?34; A. J.
Ferch, The Son of
Man in Daniel 7 (AUSDDS 6; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University
Press, 1983) 4-39.
83 Examples
of relevant texts that describe each figure as coming and mighty are provided
here;
for elaboration and other texts, see my John the Baptizer, 219-60. The
Davidic Messiah: Zech
9:9; 1QS 9:11; Mic 5:2; Pss. Sol. 17:40; the Aaronic Messiah 1QS 9:11;
4QTest 14-20;
Michael/Melchizedek: Dan 12:1; 1QM 17:6; cf. 11QMelch; the Son of Man: Dan
7:13; 1 Enoch
49:2-3; 52:4, 9; 69:29; Elijah-redivivus: Mal 3:2 (cf. 4:5); God: Isa
41:10; 1 Enoch 1:3-4, 7-9.
84 Davidic Messiah: Isa 11:2; Pss. Sol.
17:37; the Son of Man: 1 Enoch 62:2.
85 E.g., Ezek 36:26-27;
Joel 2:28-29; Jub. 1:23; 1QS 4:21.
References to a messianic figure's
bestowing a spirit may be found in T. Jud. 24:3 and T. Levi
18:11, but these texts are problematic;
cf. my John the Baptizer, 233-34 n. 61.
86 Michael/Melchizedek: 11QMelch 3:7; Elijah-redivivus:
Mal 3:2-3; Liv. Pro. 21:3. In 1 Enoch
54:6 angels cast the wicked into fire who have
evidently been judged by the Son of Man.
87 E.g., Sib. Or. 2:196-97,
203-5, 252-54, 315; 1QH 3:28-31.
88 E.g., Isa 27:12-13; Jer
13:24; 15:7; Mal 4:1;
89 The identification of John's expected figure as
God is supported by P. G. Bretscher, "Whose
Sandals (Matt 3:11)," JBL 86 (1967) 81-87; Hughes, "John the Baptist,"
191-219; Thyen,
"BAPTISMA," 136; Ernst, Johannes der Tufer, 50, 305. Alternatively,
various scholars have
identified John's expected figure with each of the expected figures discussed
above with the
exception of Michael/Melchizedek. For the Davidic Messiah, see Davies and
Allison, Matthew
1.313-14; Dunn, "Spirit-and-Fire Baptism," 89-92; Scobie, John the Baptist,
62-73; for the
Aaronic Messiah, see E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology (trans. J.
Marsh; London: SCM,
1955) 24 (cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1.313); for the Son of Man,
see Becker, Johannes der
45
IBR Studies
Tufer,
34-37; Lohmeyer, Johannes der Tufer, 157-60; Kraeling, John the
Baptist; on Elijah-
redivivus, see A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A
Critical Study of Its Progress
from Reimarus to Wrede (2d ed.; trans. W. Montgomery; London: Black, 1911)
372-73; J. A. T.
Robinson, "Elijah, John and Jesus," Twelve New Testament Studies
(London: SCM, 1962) 28-33;
repr. from NTS 4 (1958) 263-81.
90 Kraeling, John the
Baptist, 54.
91 E.g., Isa 9:2-7; Jer 23:3-4; Ezek 34:22-23;
37:21-24; CD 19:10-11, 15; 11QMelch 2:13; T. Mos.
10:2-3. I am indebted to Craig Evans for pointing out this same ambiguity in
4Q451, which refers
to both the "Messiah" and the "Lord." But it is ambiguous which one is the "he"
who brings the
salvation described in the text.
92 For further discussion, see my John the
Baptizer, 254-58, 284-88.
93 On John and judgment,
see H. Merklein, "Die Umkerpredigt bei Johannes dem Tufer und Jesus
von Nazaret," BZ 25 (1981) 29-46; P. Wolff, "Gericht und Reich Gottes
bei Johannes und Jesus,"
in Gegenwart und kommendes Reich: Schlergabe Anton Vogtle zum 65. Geburtstag
(BBS; ed. P.
Fiedler and D. Zeller; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975) 43-49.
94 E.g., Dunn, "Spirit-and-Fire Baptism," 81-92.
95 Webb, John the
Baptizer, 289-95. Cf. Jub. 1:23; T. Levi 2:3B7-8; Sib. Or.
4:188-89; 1QS 4:20-
21; 1QH 16:12; 17:26. The authenticity of baptizing "with holy spirit"
is a matter of considerable
debate. For discussion of the alternatives, see my John the Baptizer, 272-77.
96 BAGD, 183;
LSJ, 396.
97 See Letters of Alciphron 2.23.1 for the
noun ptu&on used with the verb diakaqai&rw to describe
the final cleaning of the threshing floor following the winnowing process. For
further discussion,
see my John the Baptizer, 295-300; idem, "Activity of John the Baptist's
Expected Figure," 103-
11.
98 This is due to the fragmentary nature of our
evidence as well as the observation made earlier,
that John focused on the divine/heavenly perspective rather than on the historical/earthly
specifics.
99 This is contrary to those who interpret John in
an apocalyptic framework. Kraeling (John the
Baptist, 42), for example, states concerning John's view that "judgment has
become a cosmic
event of such scope and magnitude that it beggars analogy in terms of human
experience." The
use of "fire" imagery to portray judgment should hardly be used to characterize
John the Baptist
as an apocalyptic figure. Cf. Becker, Johannes der Tufer, 105.
100 Bruce
Chilton ("John the Purifier," in Jesus in Context:
Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans [AGJU 39;
into question my analysis of John as prophet. He states that "the irony of the
allegedly critical
consensus which has emerged is that it so neatly confirms the evaluation of John
in the Gospels'
presentation" (p. 203). However, the Gospels do not argue that John is a
prophet at all; rather,
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 46
they assume it. That John was a prophet appears to be widely recognized and is
found
in many diverse strands of the tradition. I would suggest instead, that what
the Gospels argue in
their presentation is an interpretation of John's prophetic role;
namely, that John is the prophetic
forerunner of Jesus. This is, in fact, the Gospels' evaluation of John. Chilton's
discussion clearly
rejects the historicity of this forerunner role as a later Christian
interpretation, and I would agree
with him in this evaluation. However, in rejecting the prophetic role itself,
Chilton fails to
distinguish the social role John played in Jewish society as a prophet and the
Christian
interpretation of that role. In so doing, Chilton throws the baby out with the
bath water. This is
consistent with his rejection of any "recoverable message that explains his
activity. Historically,
his activity is itself as much of his program as we are ever likely to grasp"
(p. 219). My own
analysis of the traditions concerning John in the Gospels and Josephus is not
as skeptical.
Chilton's alternative to John as prophet is to portray John as "purifier,"
alluding to his
baptizing activity (p. 212). He notes, however, that John is quite distinct
from Bannus, the
statement concerning John, is that "John's baptism was to serve as a ritual of
purity following a
return to righteousness" (p. 218; cf. pp. 218-19). Chilton's view appears to
take Josephus at face
value, not considering his biases or hellenizing
tendencies. While I concur with Chilton that
John's baptism is integral to his program, I think that to portray John's role
as "purifier" is to
create a unique category just for him. There is no evidence that "purifier" was
a socially
recognized role within Second-Temple Judaism. But a man who has a program,
proclaims this
program to crowds, and practices a symbolic action as part of this program
might just be
perceived in what is a socially recognized role in Second-Temple Judaism--a
prophet. And such a
perception does not require a Christian presentation at all.
101 E.g., 1 Macc 9:27;
Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.37-41;
t. Sota 13.3.
102 For further discussion of prophetic typologies
and analysis of all three types of prophets, see
my John the Baptizer, 307-48. For a similar typology, see Horsley, "Like
One of the Prophets,"
435-63; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 135-89.
103 Examples of this type of prophet include John
Hyrcanus I (Josephus, J.W. 1.68-69;
13.282-83, 299-300, 322), and Josephus himself (J.W. 3.351-54, 400-402,
406-7; cf. Life 1-6). Cf.
discussion in my John Baptizer, 317-22; David E. Aune, Prophecy in
Early Christianity and the
Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 138-44.
104 Examples of this type of prophet include those
identified as Essenes (Josephus, J.W. 2.159),
including Judas the Essene (J.W. 1.78-80; Ant. 13.311-13),
Menahem (Ant. 15.373-79), Simon
(Ant. 17.345-47), as well as those identified as Pharisees (Ant.
17.41-45), including Samaias (Ant.
14.172-76; cf. the name Pollion in
Aune, Prophecy, 144-52.
105 Cf. Webb, John the
Baptizer, 333-46; Horsley, "Like One of the Prophets," 435-63; Horsley
and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 135-89.
106 Josephus,
3:15, 18; Matt 21:26 = Mark 11:32 = Luke 20:6.
47 IBR Studies
107 Bruce Chilton ("John the Purifier," 209 n. 25)
criticizes this nomenclature as a "solecism." In
so doing, Chilton focuses upon the name only and fails to take into
consideration the discussion
that the name attempts to encapsulate. Perhaps the suggestion above--using the
term populist
might alleviate the concern.
108 Examples of leadership popular prophets include
the Samaritan (Josephus, Ant. 18.85-87),
Theudas (Ant. 20.97-98), several unnamed prophets when Felix was
procurator (J.W. 2.258-60;
Ant. 20.167-68), the Egyptian (J.W. 2.261-63; Ant. 20.169-72; Acts
21:38), an unnamed prophet
when Festus was procurator (Ant. 20.188); cf. also Acts 5:36. Examples
of solitary popular
prophets include several unnamed prophets during Herod's siege of Jerusalem (J.W.
1.347),
Joshua ben Hananiah (J.W. 6.300-309), one unnamed prophet during the
Jewish War (J.W.
6.285), and several other unnamed prophets during the Jewish War (J.W.
286-88). For further
discussion, see Horsley, "Like One of the Prophets," 435-63; Horsley and
Hanson, Bandits,
Prophets, and Messiahs, 135-89; Webb, John the Baptizer, 333-46.
109 Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and
Messiahs, 172-73; cf. Horsley, "Like One of the
Prophets," 450-54.
110 Horsley
and Hanson (Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 178) recognize this
function: "Baptism
in the
community of
implication of this: it was the people's response to John's prophetic
proclamation and baptism
that formed this "reconstituted community."
111 For examination of the implications of this in
comparison with other leadership popular
prophets, see my John the Baptizer, 355-77. For an application of
sociological theory on social
structure and alienation to John in this regard, see Carl R. Kazmierski, "The
Stones of Abraham:
John the Baptist and the End of Torah (Matt 3,7-10
par. Luke 3,7-9)," Bib 68 (1987) 22-40, esp.
32-34. Joan Taylor (Immerser, 233) rejects this category for John,
saying that "there is no
evidence that he predicted that signs and wonders would take place". I grant
this, but the
paradigm I proposed for the various types of prophets, of which leadership
popular prophet was
one, is based on the social role played by the prophet, not on the type of
prophecy uttered.
112 For discussion and bibliography, see Wink, John
the Baptist, 60-72; and more recently,
Brown, "Gospel Infancy Narrative Research from 1976 to 1986: Part II (Luke)," CBQ
48 (1986)
660-70.
113 E.g., P. W. Hollenbach, "Social Aspects of John
the Baptizer's Preaching Mission in the
Context of Palestinian Judaism," ANRW 2.19.1 (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1979)
852-53; Fitzmyer,
Luke, 1.317; Kraeling, John the Baptist, 21-25; Scobie, John
the Baptist, 55-57; Ernst, Johannes
der Tufer, 269-72; R. A. Horsley, The Liberation of Christmas: The
Infancy Narratives in Social
Context (New York: Crossroad, 1989) 91-92.
114 E.g., W. H. Brownlee, "John the Baptist in the
New Light of Ancient Scrolls," in The Scrolls
and the New Testament (ed. K. Stendahl; London: SCM, 1958) 33-53; J. A. T.
Robinson, "The
Baptism of John and the Qumran Community," Twelve New Testament Studies
(London: SCM,
1962) 11-27; A. S. Geyser, "The Youth of John the Baptist: A Deduction from the
Break in the
Parallel Account of the Lucan Infancy Story," NovT 1 (1956) 70-75; O.
Betz, "Was John the
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 48
Baptist an
Essene," Bible Review 6 (Dec. 1990) 18-25.
115 Cf. the critique by Walter Wink, John the
Baptist and the Gospel (Th.D. diss., Union
Theological Seminary, 1963) 75-103; Webb, John the Baptizer, 351 n. 4.
The discussion by Joan
Taylor (Immerser, 15-48) is also helpful.
116 Willi
Marxsen (Mark the Evangelist [2d ed.; trans. J. Boyce et al.; Nashville:
Abingdon, 1969]
35-38) questioned the historicity of the wilderness tradition but did so on the incorrect assumption
that "wilderness" and "region around the
locality. The term "wilderness" (e!rhmoj) does not necessarily
refer to a desert without water--
only an uninhabited, uncultivated area. Josephus (J.W. 3.515) describes
the
meandering through a long wilderness area." For further discussion, see 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; R. W. Funk, "The Wilderness," JBL 78 (1959) 205-14. On
the references to
John's locality in the Fourth Gospel, see C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition
in the Fourth Gospel
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 236, 279. Cf. also the discussion
in Ernst,
Johannes der Tufer, 278-84.
117 Josephus, J.W.
2.259, 261-62;
Webb, John the Baptizer, 361-66.
118 Cf. Kraeling's statement (John the Baptist,
90-91; cf. 87-91) that John's rebuke "was not only
embarrassing, it was politically explosive. It meant aligning the pious Jewish
inhabitants of
Peraea with those of Arabic stock against their sovereign and thus fomenting
sedition and
encouraging insurrection." On this point, see also H. W. Hoehner, Herod
Antipas (1972; repr.,
119 Cf. Ellis Rivkin, "Locating John the Baptizer in
Palestinian Judaism: The Political
Dimension," in Society of Biblical Literature 1983 Seminar Papers (ed.
K. H. Richards; SBLSP
22;
120 Cf. the references above to these prophets in
Josephus' Antiquities and Jewish War.
121 The Synoptic Gospels do not state the location
of John's arrest and execution. Mark 6 begins
with Jesus in
narrative continues with the lurid account of Antipas's banquet and John's
beheading (6:17-29). It
is sometimes claimed that Antipas's hearing about Jesus in Galilee places John's
arrest and
execution in Tiberias, the location of Antipas's home in
assumption based on a rather superficial reading of the text. The record of
John's execution is a
flashback in Mark's narrative and should be treated as such. Mark simply does
not state where the
banquet and beheading took place (cf. the silence in Matt 14:1-12; Luke 2:18-20).
Josephus, on
the other hand, states clearly that John was executed at Machaerus (
located east of the
a beautiful palace. Due to its higher altitude, it would have been cooler in
summer than Tiberias
(cf. Josephus, J.W. 7.164-77, 186-89). It is an eminently plausible
location for John to have been
imprisoned and executed, particularly since it is only a few miles from John's
location in the
lower
49
IBR Studies
122 On the problems surrounding the NT account of
Antipas's banquet and John's beheading, see
Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 149-71; J. Gnilka, "Das Martyrium Johannes des
Tufers (Mark 6,17-
29)," in Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker fr Josef Schmid
(ed. P. Hoffmann;
Freiburg: Herder, 1973) 78-92.
123 Antipas did not, evidently, engage in wholesale
execution of John's followers, as the Romans
themselves sometimes did with followers of leadership popular prophets. As a
client ruler
responsible to
result in an outcry to
in a manner similar to that of his tyrannical brother, Archelaus (cf. Josephus,
J.W. 2.111;
17.342-44).
124 The focus in this essay is specifically on the
implications of Jesus' baptism by John. Elsewhere
I have explored other implications of the relationship between John and Jesus;
see my "John the
Baptist and His Relationship to Jesus," 214-29.
125 It is frequently recognized that the conversation
between Jesus and John at the baptism in Matt
3:14-15 is Matthew's attempt to mitigate the theological issues raised by Jesus'
being baptized
according to a baptism of repentance. The passage is questionable historically
due to its single
attestation and its manifest apologetic concern. Cf. Davies
and Allison, Matthew, 1.323.
126 P.
W. Hollenbach, "The Conversion of Jesus: From Jesus the Baptizer to Jesus the
Healer,"
ANRW 2.25.1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982) 199; cf. 198-200.
127 Meier, Marginal Jew, 113-14.
128 Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 9:6-37; 1QS 1:18-2:2.
129 With this understanding, I am disagreeing with
scholars who interpret John's program as
providing purity to people considered unclean and thus had only an
individualist focus, such as B.
Chilton, Jesus' Baptism and Jesus' Healing: His Personal Practice of
Spirituality (Harrisburg,
Pa.: Trinity, 1998) 1-29, esp. 28-29; idem, "John the Purifier," 218-19;
Taylor, Immerser, 49-
100.
130 The material in this section is a revision of a
portion of my earlier work, "John the Baptist and
His Relationship to Jesus," 218-22.
131 Cf. other references to John's disciples, such
as Matt 14:12 = Mark 6:29; Acts 18:25; 19:3-4.
132 Others
who conclude that Jesus was a disciple of John include Goguel, Jesus,
269-70; O.
Cullmann, The Early Church (London: SCM, 1956) 177-82; Robinson, "Elijah,
John and Jesus,"
39-40; W. R. Farmer, "John the Baptist," IDB 2.959; Dodd, Historical
Tradition, 272-75; M.
Boismard, "Les Traditions Johanniques concernant le
Baptiste," RB 70 (1963) 29; Wink, John the
Baptist, 38, 55. Josef
Ernst ("War Jesus ein Schler Johannes' des Tufers," in Vom Urchristentum
zu Jesus: für Joachim Gnilka [ed. H. Frankemlle and K. Kertelge;
33), on the other hand, argues against such a conclusion, but he fails to
appreciate the significance
of Jesus' baptism by John with respect to this issue.
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 50
133 Two other questions that I
have considered elsewhere are: (1) Did Jesus change and move
beyond the framework provided by John's ministry and movement, and if so, what
produced this
change? (2) In what ways is Jesus' later ministry in continuity with John, and
in what ways is it
different? See my discussion in "John the Baptist and His Relationship to
Jesus," 223-29.
134 Meyer, Aims
of Jesus, 122.
135 The historical reliability of these traditions
concerning the Baptist and Jesus are widely
accepted. For discussion see, e.g., Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 122, esp. n.
23; Sanders, Jesus and
Judaism, 92; J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, vol. 1: The
Proclamation of Jesus (trans. J.
Bowden; London: SCM, 1971) 45?46; Dodd, Historical Tradition, 279-87,
290-93; Linnemann,
"Jesus und der Tufer," 219-36, esp. 221-23; Boismard, "Traditions Johanniques,"
35; Robinson,
"Elijah, John and Jesus," 39-43; J. Murphy-O'Connor, "John the Baptist and
Jesus: History and
Hypotheses," NTS 36 (1990) 363; Ernst, Johannes der Tufer, 206-10.
136 The statement in John 4:2 is generally
understood to be a later editor's correction of 3:22 (and
4:1) because of the difficulties perceived by having Jesus portrayed as one who
baptized. Cf. R.
E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (AB 29; New York: Doubleday,
1966) 1.164; Jeremias,
Proclamation of Jesus, 45-46.
137 Cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 92; R.
Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John
(trans. K. Smyth et al.;
138 Wink (John the Baptist, 94) suggests
rivalry but interprets this to be the results of the portrayal
by the fourth Evangelist.
139 Cf. Meyer, Aims of
Jesus, 122; Murphy-O'Connor, "John the Baptist and Jesus," 365;
Hollenbach, "Conversion of Jesus," 204-6.
140 Cf. Scobie, John the
Baptist, 153-56. M. Goguel develops an extensive thesis based on this last
alternative but one that suffers from extensive speculation; cf. Goguel, Jean-
Baptiste, 235-74;
idem, The Life of Jesus (trans. O. Wyon; New York: Macmillan, 1945) 271-76.
141 Meyer
(Aims of Jesus, 283-84 n. 23) makes this point and cites Anton
Fridrichsen: "the man of
God" in the ancient Orient "is never isolated. He is always the centre of a
circle taught by his
words and example".
142 Cf. the Johannine interpretation of John and his
baptism in John 1:6-9, 15, 19-42. Wink, John
the Baptist, 93-95; Webb, John the Baptizer, 76-77.
143 Cf. W. B. Badke, "Was Jesus a Disciple of John,"
EvQ 62 (1990) 202.
144 E.g., Mark 1:44 = Luke 5:14; Luke 2:22; cf. also
the use of the related verb, kaqari&zw,
in the
Synoptic Gospels.
145 Cf. Brown, John, 1.151-52.
51
IBR Studies
146 Scobie, John the Baptist, 154; following
Goguel, Jesus, 274, and nineteenth-century scholars.
Cf. also Schnackenburg, John, 1:413.
147 Scobie, John the Baptist, 155; emphasis
mine. Cf. the rejection of this view by Dodd,
Historical Tradition, 280 n. 2. The text does
manifest a textual problem at this point, but it is only
between the singular meta_
I)oudai&ou and the plural meta_
I)oudai&wn.
No textual evidence exists,
however, for the emendation.
148 Murphy-O'Connor ("John the Baptist and Jesus,"
363) calls Jesus John's "assistant." Cf. R. E.
Brown ("Jesus and Elisha," Perspective 12 [1971] 87), who suggests that "Jesus
was to the
Baptist as Elisha was to Elijah."
149 Jesus
could, of course, at some later point in time change his opinion on some
matters and
move beyond John. See the discussion below, and my "John the Baptist and His
Relationship to
Jesus," 226-29.
150 E.g., M. J. Borg, "A Temperate Case for a
Non-eschatological Jesus," in Society of Biblical
Literature 1986 Seminar Papers (ed. K. H. Richards; SBLSP 25; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1986)
521-35; M. J. Borg, "Jesus and Eschatology: A Reassessment," in Images of
Jesus Today (ed. J.
Charlesworth et al.; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity, 1994) 42-67; S. J. Patterson, "The
End of
Apocalypse: Rethinking the Eschatological Jesus," TToday 52 (Apr. 1995)
29-48.
151 For
recent defenses of an eschatological Jesus, see Wright, Jesus and the
Victory of God; Dale
C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1998). For a critique
of a Cynic Jesus, see Hans D. Betz, "Jesus and the Cynics: Survey and Analysis
of a Hypothesis,"
JR 74 (1994) 453-75; Paul R. Eddy, "Jesus as Diogenes" Reflections on
the Cynic Jesus
Thesis," JBL 115 (1996) 449-69. See the response by David Seeley, "Jesus
and the Cynics
Revisited," JBL 116 (1997) 704-12. E. P. Sanders (Jesus and Judaism,
91-95) puts this point in a
larger context when he argues convincingly that Jesus must be understood on a
trajectory that
runs from an eschatologically oriented John the Baptist to an eschatologically
oriented early
church. Cf. his later articulation of the same point: idem, The Historical
Figure of Jesus (New
York: Penguin, 1993) 94-95.
152 Cf. the development of this point by Sanders, Jesus
and Judaism, 95-106; Allison, Jesus of
Nazareth, 101-2, 141-45; J. P. Meier, "The Circle of the Twelve: Did It
Exist during Jesus' Public
Ministry," JBL 116 (1997) 635-72; R. P. Meye, Jesus and the Twelve (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans,
1968).
This essay on
Jesus' Baptism is the first in a series of papers presented to and discussed by
members of the Institute for Biblical Research Jesus Group. The second essay is
by Scot
McKnight and will be concerned with Jesus and the Twelve. It will be published
in a future issue
of BBR.
153 Cf. the classic development by Dunn, Jesus
and the Spirit.
154 For further discussion see my John the
Baptizer, 278-82.
Webb: Jesus' Baptism 52
155 Some scholars assume the
link between the baptism and theophany, and in their discussion of
the baptism actually focus almost exclusively on the significance of the
theophany. E.g., R. A.
Campbell, "Jesus and His Baptism," TynBul 47 (1996) 191-214.
156 I am indebted to Darrell Bock for this
suggestion. It may be an implication of John 3:30.
157 For example, if the divine announcement ("You
are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well
pleased," Mark 1:11) is understood to combine the images of Messiah (Ps 2:7)
and servant of
Yahweh (Isa 42:1), this might contribute to explaining why Jesus later
radically reinterpreted
messiahship to be a suffering figure. See the discussion in the literature of
the possible Hebrew
Bible texts being alluded to in the divine announcement; e.g., Guelich, Mark,
1.33-34; Davies
and Allison, Matthew, 1.336-39; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2.106-7.
158 For such a sketch, see my "John the Baptist and
His Relationship to Jesus," 223-29.