Chapter 4

PART TWO

Chapter 4. They Flocked To Him

To this point, we have gone from later writings toward earlier ones to retrace the growth of the Baptist's influence. We started with a late text, Acts of the Apostles, and supplemented it with a letter of Paul that was contemporary to the events written about in Acts. We then looked at a work appearing in the 90s C.E., the only non-Christian source of information about John the Baptist. And we have just initially reviewed a Gospel text that likely first appeared in the 90s and is assumed to have later developed ideas than those found in the Synoptic Gospels. Now that we approach the Synoptics themselves, this method will have to be revised.

The Synoptic Gospels take their name from a synopsis, a book that consisted of the texts of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke set in three columns side by side.[1] As those texts' similarities came to be recognized, a synopsis helped in examining them. Further study led to an awareness that Luke and Matthew always seemed to follow the text of Mark except when they occasionally diverged from Mark's plot. When that occurred, each went a separate way to present different stories; but after such interludes, they both took up Mark's storyline once more at the same point where they left it.

As we enter discussions of the Synoptic Gospels and their information about John the Baptist, we will have to examine a few issues like these. This dependence of Matthew and Luke on the text of Mark is the first and least controversial. Its validity is assumed here at the outset, allowing us to take a quick look at the Gospel of Mark before getting into thornier problems concerning the relations of various writings with one another.

The Gospel of Mark opens with the announcement, "Here begins the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God" (Mark 1.1). That is followed immediately by verses from Malachi 3.1 and Isaiah 40.3 (but both attributed to Isaiah) as a lead-in to the full story.

In the prophet Isaiah it stands written: "Here is my herald whom I send on ahead of you, and he will prepare your way. A voice crying aloud in the wilderness, 'Prepare a way for the Lord; clear a straight path for him.'" And so it was that John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness proclaiming a baptism in token of repentance, for the forgiveness of sins; and they flocked to him from the whole Judaean country-side and the city of Jerusalem; and were baptized by him in the River Jordan, confessing their sins.

John was dressed in a rough coat of camel's hair, with a leather belt round his waist, and he fed on locusts and wild honey. His proclamation ran: "After me comes one who is mightier than I. I am not fit to unfasten his shoes. I have baptized you with water; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

It happened at this time that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. At the moment when he came up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him. And a voice spoke from heaven: "Thou art my Son, my Beloved; on thee my favour rests." (Mark 1.2-11)

Jesus is then driven into the wilderness for a trial by Satan (Mark 1.12-13), and we are told, "After John had been arrested, Jesus came into Galilee proclaiming the Gospel of God: 'The time has come; the kingdom of God is upon you; repent, and believe the Gospel'" (1.14-15).

Mark's next reference to the Baptist occurs in the form of a question put to Jesus (Mark 2.18): "Once, when John's disciples and the Pharisees were keeping a fast, some people came to him and said, 'Why is it that John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?'" Jesus replied that one should not expect a bridegroom's friends to fast while he is with them; there would be fasting once the bridegroom is gone from them (2.19-20). He added that one should not mend an old coat with a patch of new, un-shrunken cloth because the patch tears away eventually, increasing the size of the hole; similarly, new wine is not put into old wine-skins because the skins will burst and both wine and skins will be lost (2.21-22).

The sixth chapter of Mark relates that Jesus' claims were not well-received in his hometown, followed by an account of him authorizing the mission of his disciples. They soon had some success casting out devils and healing the sick, and began to draw much attention.

Now King Herod [Antipas] heard of it, for the fame of Jesus had spread; and people were saying, "John the Baptist has been raised to life, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in him." Others said, "It is Elijah." Others again, "He is a prophet like one of the old prophets." But Herod, when he heard of it, said, "This is John, whom I beheaded, raised from the dead."

For this same Herod had sent and arrested John and put him in prison on account of his brother Philip's wife, Herodias, whom he had married. John had told Herod, "You have no right to your brother's wife." Thus Herodias nursed a grudge against him and would willingly have killed him, but she could not; for Herod went in awe of John, knowing him to be a good and holy man; so he kept him in custody. He liked to listen to him, although the listening left him greatly perplexed.

Herodias found her opportunity when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet to his chief officials and commanders and the leading men of Galilee. Her daughter came in and danced, and so delighted Herod and his guests that the king said to the girl, "Ask what you like and I will give it you." And he swore an oath to her: "Whatever you ask I will give you, up to half my kingdom." She went out and said to her mother, "What shall I ask for?" She replied, "The head of John the Baptist." The girl hastened back at once to the king with her request: "I want you to give me here and now, on a dish, the head of John the Baptist." The king was greatly distressed, but out of regard for his oath and for his guests he could not bring himself to refuse her. So the king sent a soldier of the guard with orders to bring John's head. The soldier went off and beheaded him in the prison, brought the head on a dish, and gave it to the girl; and she gave it to her mother.

When John's disciples heard the news, they came and took his body away and laid it in a tomb. (Mark 6.14-29)

All remaining references to John in the text are indirect. Jesus and his disciples traveled to villages around Caesarea Philippi, some 30 miles north-northeast of Capernaum. On the way, he asked his companions who people thought that he was: "They answered, 'Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, others one of the prophets'" (Mark 8.28). Later, presumably in the same general territory (north of the Sea of Galilee), Jesus took Simon Peter and the brothers James and John up a high mountain where they witnessed the Transfiguration. On the way back down, Jesus told them to keep quiet about what they had seen "until the Son of Man had risen from the dead" (9.9).

And they put a question to him: "Why do our teachers say that Elijah must come first?" He replied, "Yes, Elijah does come first to set everything right. Yet how is it that the scriptures say of the Son of Man that he is to endure great sufferings and to be treated with contempt? However, I tell you, Elijah has already come and they have worked their will upon him, as the scriptures say of him." (Mark 9.11-13)

The final mention of John the Baptist occurs in the context of a dispute in the temple. While Jesus was walking in the temple court, a group of "chief priests, lawyers, and elders" approached and challenged his authority to act as he was doing (11.27-28).

Jesus said to them, "I have a question to ask you too; and if you give me an answer, I will tell you by what authority I act. The baptism of John: was it from God, or from men? Answer me." This set them arguing among themselves: "What shall we say? If we say, 'from God,' he will say, 'Then why did you not believe him?' Shall we say, 'from men'?" -- but they were afraid of the people, for all held that John was in fact a prophet. So they answered, "We do not know." And Jesus said to them, "Then neither will I tell you by what authority I act." (Mark 11.29-33)

The most noticeable thing about the Gospel of Mark's account is the lack of information provided on John the Baptist. Beyond the Gospel's opening and the episode of his execution, he only appears indirectly in this text. We hear of his disciples and his baptism, but we hear little about John himself. The most extensive tale, Mark's story of the execution, is typical. We learn from it that "King Herod" (the tetrarch Antipas) and some others thought that Jesus was a resurrected John the Baptist; that Antipas had imprisoned John for criticisms of his marriage to Herodias; that John may have remained in custody at least partly because Antipas liked listening to him (?); that John's severed head served as a conversation piece at a bizarre banquet -- and women were mostly to blame for the tragedy! We hear less about John than Herodias and nearly as much about his head and her daughter.

Moreover, that episode is in the form of an "aside," squeezed between presumably early stories of Jesus (the mission discourse at Mark 6.6-13 and the miracle of the loaves at 6.30-44). The sequence occurs along these lines: Jesus and his disciples had to leave his hometown; he gave the disciples their marching orders; when people began noticing them, some (including Antipas) thought Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead -- and this is what happened to John. Then Jesus and his entourage managed a big feast with few resources. The focus is clearly on Jesus, not John.

A lack of information is also a problem in the case of the question put to Jesus about his disciples' practices compared to the fasting of the Pharisees and John's disciples. The obscurity around the context of the question limits the analysis. As a general distinction, it might mean the disciples of Jesus were a rowdy bunch. As a direct observation amid solemn ceremonies, they may have appeared downright impious, even blasphemous. There is no indication of the occasion for a fast; we could draw nearly any conclusion.

But note how the incident connects with similar images in the Gospel of John. There we have an account of a presumed actual event. At the direction of Jesus, servants filled up with water some jars "used for Jewish rites of purification" in wedding ceremonies, and the water became a most savory wine. Later, the Baptist testified to Whom the Bride belonged. Here we have testimony from a kind of bridegroom himself. While these elements may confirm a common theme (or imply dependence of one text on another), and while Jesus' reply in Mark might well have come from the historical Jesus, the form in which question and response appear points to concerns of the later Church.[2]

There may seem to be less obscurity in Mark's account of another question posed to Jesus. When challenged by religious leaders in the temple, he challenged them about the origins of John's baptism. They were unable to give a straight answer, so he won the argument (without, incidentally, providing a straight answer himself). That assumes that the distinction "from God or from men" was decisive, that although those leaders had held John in disdain, they knew that "the masses" thought highly of him. They recognized that his influence was not so distant that they could ignore it without consequences.

But while it is plausible that such a challenge could have led Jesus to challenge religious leaders about their opinion of John, the episode's framing gives reason for doubt. Their situation was supposed to be precarious if they disavowed John's mission, which obscures the implication (according to the terms of the argument) that it should already be in doubt since they did not believe him in the first place. And does the phrase "from men" make sense if envisioned as part of a statement? (A way of saying, "did John make it up on his own?") A later interpreter might understand the gist of remarks in such a form, forgetting that most people do not talk that way.

Similarly, the reply of Jesus to the question about Elijah would be incoherent as a part of actual dialogue. He affirms that Elijah does indeed first come to set things right, but John the Baptist's being in that role is only alluded to (the connection is found not in Mark but Matthew).[3] Then there is a gratuitous rhetorical question about what scripture says about the Son of Man's fate. We know this is in the context of a discussion of Jesus' identity; people think he is a type of prophet, the disciples believe he is the Messiah, and he undercuts their hopes with omens of suffering. But apart from it possibly only representing more chastisement of his disciples' density (they ask about Elijah without knowing what scripture says), how can we understand this except as reflecting the concerns of the later Church? Note that "the scriptures say of" both Elijah and the Son of Man that they will suffer. In actual scripture, there is no suggestion of any suffering for the returned Elijah. On the contrary, he seems to be a rather triumphant figure.[4]

From these observations, we may turn to the opening of the Gospel of Mark with a more critical eye. The introduction of John the Baptist may be an almost wholly contrived scriptural depiction, with his physical description based on Elijah in II Kings 1.8, his heraldic role based on Malachi 3.1, and his wilderness location based on Isaiah 40.3. It might be that the sole original element in Mark's story is that John was a baptizer at the Jordan who had baptized Jesus.

As presented in the Gospel of Mark, John the Baptist seems remote, as if he were barely more than a legendary figure from the distant past. That might be appropriate to someone writing many years after John's death, but forty years is not two thousand. We could conclude from this and from the general lack of information that the author knew little about John. It is also conspicuous that most of Mark's references imply that John had been dead for some time during Jesus' career. But if the two men were contemporaries, why would the author know so much about Jesus while seeming to know so little of John?

Still, despite this, the Gospel of Mark tells us that Jesus' career began with his baptism by John and that John's arrest at least coincided with Jesus embarking on his own mission. Later, the story of John's execution appears next to accounts of Jesus expanding the mission, sending out disciples to heal the sick. Still later, the authority of Jesus and the esteem of John's ritual are linked together -- both, presumably, were "from God" and not "from men." Almost despite itself, the Gospel of Mark reveals a connection in the careers of Jesus of Nazareth and John the Baptist.

Notes

     1. Information in this paragraph is from Mack, Lost Gospel, op. cit., pp. 3-4, 15-27, passim.
     2. Jesus might have said something about a bridegroom, even referred to himself as a kind of bridegroom, but any original meaning is clouded by our understanding it in a theological context. Cf. Crossan, Historical Jesus, op. cit., p. 260. The wedding parable in Q (Matthew 22.2-10; Luke 14.16-24) could be the source for a bridegroom theme.
     3. See Matthew 17.10-13 for the clarification of Mark's oblique reference.
     4. Malachi 4.5-6; Ecclesiasticus 48.1-11. The "expectation" about Elijah was that God would send him back just before the Day of the Lord. In known writings, that came solely from Malachi 4.5-6 (Ecclesiasticus 48.1-11 being a later exposition). As with general expectations about a Messiah, a terminal defeat was anticipated for the forces of evil, not for the good guys.

Continue to next chapter

Return to Table of Contents