MetaCatholic

I have been pondering the figure of John the Baptizer, as one tends to at this time of year. Jesus’ baptism by John, and his early association with the Baptizer’s circle, would seem – as most recognise – to be among the most securely attested historical facts about him, even for sceptics. At the root of this acceptance is an application of the criterion of embarrassment. The gospels seem clearly uncomfortable with Jesus’ baptism by John.

I recap briefly some of the well-known references most usually noted, and some commonly drawn inferences. First, the Synoptics:

• Mark (and I am assuming Markan priority) is relatively matter of fact about it: “Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.” (1:9).
• Matthew includes a dialogue hinting at a difficulty some may have had with the inferior, John, baptising his superior, Jesus. “John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” (3:14)
• Luke both removes John from the scene before he refers to Jesus’ baptism, and uses a passive verb, without specifying John as the agent of baptism: “But Herod the ruler … added to them all [the evil things he had done] by shutting up John in prison. Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized” (3:19-21) Again, Luke’s reticence about the actual baptism is intriguing.
• Matthew and Luke (or Q if you like that sort of thing) also note John’s questioning and doubts: “When John heard in prison what the Messiah was doing, he sent word by his disciples and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?” (Matthew 11:2ff, cf Luke 7:18ff) One of the interesting features in this passage is that it shows Jesus making the identification between John the Baptist and the prophesied messenger, a point I wish to return to at the end.

These verses are generally held both to point clearly to an embarrassment about Jesus baptism by John, and hint at a rather more complex relationship between the Baptist’s expectation and his identification of Jesus as the one to come. This question is one of several, however, in which the Fourth Gospel, going its own way as usual, provides another valuable source and additional insight for an historical reconstruction.

• The prologue doesn’t simply introduce the figure of Jesus, it goes out of its way to introduce John also in order to put him in his place: “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light.” (1:6-8) This prompts the question whether there was a continuing need for an overt denial.
• The prologue is then backed up by the scene in which the Judeans from Jerusalem send messengers to John, wishing to know who he is. They receive a very clear negative answer “He confessed and did not deny it, but confessed, “I am not the Messiah.” (1:20). Again, one must ask if anyone might have thought John was the Messiah, or a competitor for Jesus.
• Jesus’ baptism is not narrated at all in the Fourth Gospel. It can be held to be implied, but what is key is the vision of the Spirit coming down on Jesus, which tells John who he is.”John testified, ‘I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 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.’ ” (1:32-33) Here again, we seem to see the same embarrassment that is present in Matthew and Luke, expressed even more strongly.
• Next comes the interesting (apparently artlessly un-self-conscious) reference to Jesus baptising: “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptized.  John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim because water was abundant there; and people kept coming and were being baptized” (3:22-23). Both John’s and Jesus’ ministries appear to be running in parallel at this point.
• This is shortly followed by another such reference which the author this time notices and corrects. “Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, ‘Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John’  — although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized — he left Judea and started back to Galilee.” (4:1-3) Many historians, I think rightly, presume this indicates that initially Jesus’ ministry resembles John’s more than the Synoptic picture suggests, and may easily have been seen by some as competitive. The circles within which the Fourth Gospel is written would seem to be in close touch with some such continuing group of the Baptist’s disciples. Naturally, this baptismal competition seriously questions the idea that John’s ministry as one of preparation specifically for Jesus was as clear as the gospel tradition portrays it.

None of these points are, of course, original, but rather fairly commonplace (and they could be supplemented). Whichever way you cut it, the evidence points powerfully to the historical basis of Jesus’ baptism by John, and his early association with the Baptist circle and even some connections to the Baptist style of ministry before he strikes out on his own. (A continuing ministry of baptism by Jesus would also help explain why this is the undisputed means of Christian initiation in the earliest churches.)

What I do not think has been adequately considered, though, is why the gospels are so plainly unable to let go of an historical tradition that causes them so much difficulty. Part of the answer may well lie in their desire to bear witness to what actually happened, however much they play some of it down. But I would suggest that it may also point firmly to the historicity of the Matthean / Lukan [/Q] tradition that it is Jesus who identifies John the Baptist as the one who was prophesied: the messenger who prepares the way. John has a more general eschatological message, and may indeed be open to, though not entirely clear about, the possibility that Jesus is the one who is to come. Jesus is the one who firmly interprets John’s ministry to focus on himself.

This provides a more than adequate reason for the inability of the gospel tradition to airbrush the Baptist out of the picture, despite the embarrassment he causes. It is Jesus who locates John clearly in the overall interpretation of prophetic material pointing to himself and his ministry, and makes John’s story part of Jesus’ own story and significance. The historical near-certainty we can have about Jesus’ baptism by John may also point to a far more strongly grounded historical case for Jesus’ self-understanding as the “promised one” in the light of Israel’s prophetic traditions than is often granted. What do you think?