Chapter 1

PART ONE

Chapter 1. He Knew Only John's Baptism

A lack of sources of information will limit any study of John the Baptist. In John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus, his "Inventory for John the Baptist Sayings" has eighteen total references in Christian texts and only six with plural attestation.[1] (That is, they occur in separate texts independent of one another, with no known mutual source). Aside from this, there is one striking passage in the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus. So we could assume at the start that there is not much we will be able to determine about the Baptist.

It might be best, then, to start by looking at his influence on later followers, as indicated in Acts of the Apostles 18.24-19.7, and then work back from there. This approach seems reasonable since the author of Luke and Acts seems to have been aware that his two-volume work represented a history of the early Church. Also, some scholars believe that reconstruction of the Q Gospel text was made possible by a straightforward use of it by Luke's author. That is, he copied directly from and crafted his Gospel around Q in some original form instead of moving sayings or passages out of sequence (as the composer of the Gospel of Matthew supposedly did).[2] But we need to bear in mind another aspect of this author's work: his skill as a writer makes it hard to determine what might be historically plausible rather than, say, a literary flourish. One example will serve as a note of caution.

Imagine Jesus being led to execution, and some women are following the procession, mourning over his fate. He turns and tells them to weep not for him but for themselves and their children, for "days are surely coming" when barren women will be considered fortunate, and people will be praying for death. And he adds, "For if these things are done when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?" (Luke 23.31) A poignant and memorable saying, which occurs only in the Gospel of Luke. We may wonder if the author knew of an otherwise unknown original saying, or if it was his own exceptional and inspired creation.

At Acts 18.24-28, we encounter a man named Apollos, described as a learned and eloquent Jew born in Alexandria in Egypt. Apollos "had been instructed in the way of the Lord" and "taught accurately the facts about Jesus, though he knew only John’s baptism" (Acts 18.25). He seemed to create a sensation among Jewish and early Christian congregations at Ephesus (a city on the Aegean coast, now known as Efes, Turkey). When he was heard at synagogue by Aquila and Priscilla (a husband and wife who were Jewish-Christian associates of the Apostle Paul), the couple "took him in hand" and taught "the new way" to him "in greater detail" (18.26). Later sponsored by the Ephesian "brotherhood" for a move to Corinth (in the heart of Greece), Apollos "strenuously confuted the Jews, demonstrating publicly from the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus" (18.28).

Acts 19.1-7 then relates that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul encountered "a number of converts" at Ephesus. When Paul asked if they had received the Holy Spirit when they became believers, they said that they had "not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit" (19.2). When asked what baptism they had been given, they replied, "John's baptism" (19.3). Paul then informed them that while John's baptism was "in token of repentance," John himself had said that trust should be put "in one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus" (19.4). Whereupon they accepted baptism "into the name of the Lord Jesus"; and after Paul laid hands upon them, "the Holy Spirit came upon them and they spoke in tongues of ecstasy and prophesied" (19.6).

These passages are compelling as they point to the survival of followers of John the Baptist at the time of Paul's mission and suggest that they knew little or nothing about Jesus.[3] (They at least knew nothing about "Christianity.") And this cannot be taken lightly, since we also must assume a significant geographical spread of this "Baptist" influence -- as far as Asia Minor and Greece, if not Egypt as well. But that is quite a problem when we know of no survival of such a community separate from Christians. Had it been so widespread, we would tend to think there should be more evidence for it.[4]

According to Acts 19.7, there were about a dozen of these "baptists" at Ephesus. And we should also note that Apollos knew "only" John's baptism and had to be taken in hand by those who knew more than he. Since this following did not appear significant, while Paul and his friends were successful in converting those few who misunderstood "the new way," we may see these passages as attempts to minimize John's stature relative to Jesus by obscuring an earlier situation. That suggests that Christians initially had such high regard for John the Baptist that it was necessary to diminish him in many ways to stress the singular importance of Jesus. That might further imply that early followers perceived a degree of equivalence between the two.

Turning from the book of Acts to the letters of Paul, we unfortunately find no mention of John the Baptist or his baptism. In one letter, however, we find that a man named Apollos held a prominent place among the Corinthians. That is a bit unsettling since we know many big names without having much of a hint of this fellow. (Suggesting, like the sudden appearance of Stephen in Acts, that a great deal remains obscure about the historical origins of Christianity.)

The Corinthian church was a thorn in Paul's side, afflicting him on many occasions with unique interpretations of the Christian message as well as attacks on the shortcomings of his character.[5] His letters to them are contentious and defensive, pleading for them to turn from evil. Many Corinthians seemingly saw "the new way" as an experience that set them free to do anything they wanted because Christ had freed them from sin. In several passages, Paul vehemently denounced licentiousness and immorality while defending himself against derision that went beyond being called a "spoil-sport." In the opening passages of I Corinthians (probably written from Ephesus in the winter of 53-54 C.E.[6]), Paul addressed himself to the Corinthians' disunity and disputes over their allegiances based on misinterpretations of the Christian message.

I have been told, my brothers, by Chloe's people that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: each of you is saying, "I am Paul's man," or "I am for Apollos"; "I follow Cephas," or "I am Christ's." Surely Christ has not been divided among you! Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Was it in the name of Paul that you were baptized?    (I Corinthians 1.11-13)

...Can you not see that while there is jealousy and strife among you, you are living on the purely human level of your lower nature? When one says, "I am Paul's man," and another, "I am for Apollos," are you not all too human?

After all, what is Apollos? What is Paul? We are simply God's agents in bringing you to the faith. Each of us performed the task which the Lord allotted to him: I planted the seed, and Apollos watered it; but God made it grow. Thus it is not the gardeners with their planting and watering who count, but God, who makes it grow. Whether they plant or water, they work as a team....    (I Corinthians 3.3-8)

So never make mere men a cause for pride. For though everything belongs to you -- Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, the world, life, and death, the present and the future, all of them belong to you -- yet you belong to Christ, and Christ to God.    (I Corinthians 3.21-23)

So we learn that Paul founded the congregation at Corinth and Apollos succeeded him as their missionary.[7] Paul then emphasized his point about the teamwork of the "apostles" (4.9) as an example to be followed. "Into this general picture, my friends, I have brought Apollos and myself on your account, so that you may take our case as an example, and learn to 'keep within the rules,' as they say, and may not be inflated with pride as you patronize one and flout the other" (4.6).

That is presumably the original point of the letter: the apostles are all on the same side, as you should be, also; patronizing particular persons confuses the issue because no single one of them is important -- the important thing is your salvation through Christ. But underlying this, it is not hard to detect some hurt feelings. As the congregation's founder, Paul saw himself as their spiritual father. Now word had reached him that many members preferred Apollos. Possibly he vented his frustration on the same theme in chapters 10-13 of the second letter to the Corinthians.[8]

Beyond that, another underlying issue might be disputes over beliefs and practices in the rites of baptism.[9] Near the start of the letter, Paul said, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to proclaim the Gospel" (I Corinthians 1.17). That suggests that Apollos may have stressed the rituals, with people expressing enthusiasm over the experience, whereas Paul only seemed to talk a great deal. It could also imply the prevalence of a baptizing tradition of some magnitude, especially if Apollos had been a follower of John the Baptist, maybe even regarded as John's successor, as Cephas (Simon Peter) had been a "successor" to Jesus. But that would read too much into it based on the account in Acts; Paul made no explicit connection between Apollos and John the Baptist.

He did, however, provide ample evidence of the stature of Apollos. First, there was the connection made between he and Apollos as "fellow-gardeners" of the congregation. Then there is the independence of Apollos' status implied in Paul's reply to the Corinthians' inquiry about when Apollos would come back. "As for our friend Apollos, I urged him strongly to go to Corinth with the others, but he was quite determined not to go at present; he will go when opportunity offers" (I Corinthians 16.12). That is the last time Paul mentioned him in the letter, and the wording is a fair indication he was not one of Paul's assistants (like Timothy and Titus).

Finally, Paul made two separate references to the idea that he, Apollos, and Cephas were the main men for the Corinthians (1.12; 3.21-23). Leaving aside other issues (like Peter's influence reaching distant Greece and the curious inclusion of Christ among the others at 1.12), what seems clear is that Paul viewed Apollos as being on an equal footing with himself and Simon Peter, held to be on the same level as an apostle. That says a lot. And again, it mainly seems odd because tradition has not preserved much of any status for Apollos. That might mean that he was a follower of John, originally or even primarily, and his diminished significance by the later Church may reveal an intriguing picture of early Christianity.

Paul himself, for instance, seems to have had no problem designating Apollos as an apostle on a par with himself and Peter. The case of Peter is clear enough: he was directly connected to the earliest events, not only knew Jesus but was probably his closest friend, and he seemingly claimed to have seen Jesus after the resurrection. Paul, on the other hand, had to assert his credentials as an apostle based on his claim that he had encountered the resurrected Christ. Apollos could well have been a charismatic leader with a wide following, even the leader of a hypothetical "Baptist movement," but that would seem to be insufficient criteria for Paul. That suggests that Apollos had a direct connection to John (or Jesus), or he claimed to be a witness to the resurrected Jesus, or both. And the account in Acts does not help much since it says that Apollos "knew only John’s baptism" but "taught accurately the facts about Jesus."

This initial foray may seem to have taken us far from an investigation of John the Baptist. But it serves notice of how much there is to consider in only a few passages. We can draw some preliminary conclusions from these considerations as follows:

1. While a "John the Baptist movement" might conceivably have spread as far as Asia Minor and Greece, it seems there should be more evidence for it than what we find in the sparse literary traces. To the extent that it existed at all, we can presume that it was dependent on the corresponding Christian developments early on. For the same reason, we can account for a lack of information about him or any "movement" in sources of rabbinical Judaism. The Baptist's identification with Christianity was so complete so early that there was no question of Judaism acknowledging him, and there would have been a censoring of any stories of him (which is sad irony).

2. As seen most clearly in the passages from the book of Acts, the official Christian presentation of John and his following was extremely condescending. Apollos was evidently too prominent to ignore, but he could at least be given short shrift by the earliest Church historian writing some fifty years later. But that implies that the Church was uneasy with his original stature, which might be because he was known primarily as a follower of John.

Consider the alternatives. If Apollos had been wholeheartedly "converted to Christianity," his earliest loyalties would have been beside the point. And if he had been a notable player in the early Church (as Paul indicates), then later accounts would likely have confirmed his status with more information about him. (As it is, one of the main things we know is that he required some tutoring before he was fit for the kingdom of God, but at least he did not need to be "re-baptized" like those feckless fellows in Acts 19.7.) But all of that argues for a view of Apollos, not as a "Baptist disciple" who was "converted," but as a leader within a still-active tradition.

Further exploration seems warranted. If John's influence had been relatively insignificant, traditions about him might be some sentimental magnification: he became the "forerunner," the herald of the Messiah, the last of the Prophets. But if John had few followers, and if incredibly early on the original community was disposed to see Jesus as largely self-sufficient, uniquely eminent, and on up to the Incarnation of God Almighty, then why bother with John at all? But if John's influence had been considerable, and well attested in the earliest community (possibly regarding John as the co-founder or even the original leader), then that would have been embarrassing to those who came to see Jesus in exalted terms, and they may have felt obliged to put John in proper perspective -- in his place -- and minimize his status. And if that were the case, we would expect Christian attitudes toward him (and any followers) to be somewhat condescending and adoptive.

So, on the one hand, there is evidence for an initially high status for John the Baptist but little for the presence of a "Baptist movement." On the other, there is some evidence of surviving "Baptist" traditions. If we put the hands together, we may see that tradition (and even a loyal faction) is not the same as an independent movement, and that the original Christians might have been a diverse variety of people who did not experience so grievous a tension in their traditions and loyalties -- the followers of John were the followers of Jesus, and vice versa. They thought of themselves as being all together, which was the point re-stated by Paul in his letter. It could then be that he was showing tact in the reserved respect he accorded Apollos: he carefully avoided offending a large part of the congregation by placing Apollos on the same level as Peter and himself. Yet that still must be seen in the light of Paul's insecurity relative to the authority of Jesus' original disciples; he could but "boast" of a critical experience, his vision of the resurrected Lord. That bears heavily on the nature of Apollos' connections to events.

3. The world of Paul and Apollos, some twenty years after the deaths of Jesus and John, seems well removed from the world of two preachers who never got far from Palestine. Apollos was said to have been born in Egypt while living his adult life in Asia Minor and Greece. Paul, a native of Tarsus in southeastern Asia Minor, was eventually running around nearly everywhere in western parts of the known world. He planned to visit Rome en route to Spain (Romans 15.23), but the trip to Rome was allegedly his last trip anywhere. Acts 18.2 states that he "fell in with" Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth; they had recently arrived from Italy because of an imperial edict that expelled Jews from Rome (c. 49 C.E.).[10] At the time of his writing of I Corinthians (53-54 C.E.), they were with him at Ephesus, since he gave their greetings to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 16.19). A few years later, they were back in Rome again: a grateful Paul asked to have his greetings given to the two who "risked their necks" to save his life (Romans 16.4). That is a fluid picture, implying a good deal of affluence; we can assume Aquila had a villa or two to his name. If Apollos was a learned Jew from Alexandria, it also seems likely that he was a man of some means. And the fact that Christianity became distinct from Judaism is due in no small part to the exertions of Paul, likewise a literate and educated man. But we may be far from someone who claimed that God's kingdom belonged to the poor and that it was a bit absurd to think rich folks might get in, and equally far from someone who lived out in the wilds and offered a simple ritual open to anyone regardless of their place.

Notes

     1. Crossan, Historical Jesus, op. cit., p. 453.
     2. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? op. cit., p. 169. The fullest background is at Mack's Lost Gospel, op. cit., pp. 3-4, 15-27, passim. Many scholars agree that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are dependent on the Gospel of Mark, that their respective authors used a version of Mark to form the core of their narratives. As scholars observed that Matthew and Luke shared much material not found in Mark (like sayings attributed to Jesus), they concluded that another primary source was used (calling it "Q" -- for "Quelle," German for source). That seemed to be confirmed after 1945 when a similar "sayings gospel" (Gospel of Thomas) was found at the Nag Hammadi library in Egypt. Scholars have since tried to reconstruct the Q Gospel as a separate text all its own, and some believe it is one of the earliest used by Jesus' followers.
     3. An introductory perspective is at A. N. Wilson, Jesus: A Life (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Co., 1992), pp. 102-3.
     4. Also puzzling is how rabbinical Judaism failed to note the founder of such a following. (Though, with embarrassment, it did acknowledge a couple of miracle-working contemporaries. See Crossan's Historical Jesus, pp. 142-56.) A clearer picture may emerge if we envision John's "fame" and that of the ritual associated with him being fairly widespread among Jews of the Diaspora (those living outside Palestine). It could be less a question of distinct groups loyal to him than general knowledge of him. If the information were more word of mouth, it would have been less likely to survive, less detailed, and more quickly and thoroughly subsumed into the Christian tradition.
     5. Information for this paragraph is indebted to Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? pp. 126-35. Cf. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 108-9, 252-322.
     6. Crossan, Historical Jesus, pp. 228, 427; Murphy-O'Connor, p. 280. Common Era is a bit of a compromise for the commonly accepted dating of all human history as occurring before and after the birth of Jesus Christ (B.C. and A.D., traditionally); if you like, "C.E." can be read as "Christian Era," as that is exactly what is meant.
     7. Editor's note, I Corinthians 1.12, The New English Bible, Oxford study ed., ed. Samuel Sandmel, M. Jack Suggs, and Arnold J. Tkacik (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), p. 201; cf. Murphy-O'Connor, pp. 274-6.
     8. Cf. Murphy-O'Connor, pp. 276-7, 293-8.
     9. Cf. Wilson, p. 103. This will be addressed more later but remains obscure.
   10. Editor's note, Acts of the Apostles 18.2, New English Bible, pp. 165-6; but consider the evaluation of Murphy-O'Connor, pp. 9-15, 333. Evidently, the problem in the city was "the Jews constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus" (i.e., Christ).

Continue to next chapter

Return to Table of Contents