An article written by Jomin Joseph John the Baptist and Jesus

Introduction
In the Gospel of John, we read, There was a man sent from God, whose name was John(Jn 1:6). This man, John the Baptist, is commonl re!arded as the forer"nner of Jes"s and a #rid!e fi!"re #etween J"daism and earl $hristianit . %e is witho"t do"#t a Bi#lical character of immense si!nificance, #"t sadl often o&erloo'ed in contemporar $hristian tho"!ht. The so"rces of first( hand information that we ha&e concernin! his life and ministr are limited to the )ew Testament, and the writin!s of Joseph"s, the famo"s Jewish historian of the first cent"r . Basin! on these so"rces, in this essa , I tr to "nderstand the role of this !reat prophet in relation to the ministr of Jes"s. I m"st confess, at the &er o"tset, that o"r so"rces are &er limited to determine their m"t"al relationship and that there e*ists amon! the scholars differin! opinions concernin! how the s"pported each other.

A. The role of John the Baptist in relation to the ministry of Jesus (a) in the Synoptic Gospels and (b) in the Fourth Gospel
The principal so"rces of information concernin! the life and ministr of John the Baptist are the Gospels. +t. ,"'e !i&es "s the details of the wonderf"l circ"mstances accompan in! the #irth of John the Baptist. +t. -atthew.s Gospel stands in close relation with that of +t. ,"'e, as far as the Baptist/s p"#lic ministr is concerned, #"t contains nothin! in reference to his earl life. 0rom +t. -ar', whose acco"nt of the 1rec"rsor.s life is &er mea!re, we ha&e a narration of his death. It is interestin! to note that the 0o"rth Gospel differs considera#l in its presentation of John the Baptist from that of the + noptics. It is common to all the fo"r !ospels that John the Baptist/s role as the &oice in the wilderness (Is 11:2). In the 0o"rth Gospel, he e*pressl claimed this role for himself. In the 0o"rth Gospel, he is simpl John. B"t the + noptics refers to him as the Bapti3er. The a"thor of the 0o"rth Gospel does not choose to emphasi3e John/s role in #apti3in!, his emphasise is on witnessin!. John #ears witness to li!ht and Jes"s is the li!ht. %is tas' no lon!er means preachin! and #apti3in! #"t pointin! to Jes"s. %e points to Jes"s and then two of his disciples lea&e him to follow Jes"s (Jn 1:24(25).

The + noptic Gospels !i&e somewhat of a #io!raph of John the Baptist #"t the fo"rth !ospel does not !i&e. In the 0o"rth Gospel John the Baptist identifies and declares Jes"s as the comin! one, the title of -essiah. %e confesses that Jes"s is the lam# of God (Jn1:67) and that %ol +pirit remains on Jes"s (Jn1:26). This e*press identification of Jes"s has no parallel in the + noptic Gospels. The 0o"rth Gospel sa s that there was a time d"rin! which John and Jes"s were at wor' (#apti3in!) sim"ltaneo"sl . The + noptic Gospels do not lea&e room for s"ch a parallel ministr . There is no s"!!estion in the + noptic Gospels that 1eter and 8ndrew 'new that Jes"s was -essiah when the left their nets to follow Jes"s. The 0o"rth Gospel claims John the Baptist as the first $hristian confessor in contrast to the &iew represented in the + noptic Gospels that he was not in the 9in!dom of God. :e ha&e more enco"nters and comm"nication #etween John the Baptist and Jes"s in the 0o"rth Gospel than in the + noptics. Joachim Jeremias commentin! on the same sa in!: It is eas to "nderstand wh the s noptic !ospels compress the enco"nter of the two men into the moment of Jes"s/ #aptism. The tradition a&oided, as far as possi#le, an thin! that mi!ht loo' li'e an e;"ation of Jes"s with the Baptist or e&en a s"#ordination of Jes"s to him. 8n reports of this 'ind were passed o&er or toned down.1 )ow the ;"estion arises as to how do we acco"nt for these differences that we find #etween + noptic Gospels and the 0o"rth Gospel< $.%. =odd who has dealt ela#oratel on the matter arri&es at this concl"sion > that in !i&in! his acco"nt of the ministr of John the Baptist and its relation to the ministr of Jes"s $hrist the 0o"rth ?&an!elist has drawn lar!el "pon material which reached him in traditional form. +ome of it o&erlaps with the material 'nown to "s in the + noptic Gospels, #"t there is no s"fficient reason to s"ppose that the ser&ed as so"rces to o"r a"thor. 6

B. The Baptism of Jesus and its Si nificance

8ll the fo"r Gospels mention the e&ent of Jes"s/ #aptism. -a@orit of the scholars are of the opinion that there is no reason for do"#tin! the historicit of the Baptism of Jes"s # John the Baptist.2 The con&entional pict"re of Jes"s/ #aptism that we ha&e is Jes"s standin! in front of John the Baptist who po"rs water o&er his head. This pict"re ma not #e appropriate to the !ospel narrations we ha&e in -' 1.7 and ,' 2:61. In ,"'e Jes"s is portra ed as one of a lar!e crowd who had come to see John the Baptist and is #apti3ed #efore them, while -atthew ma'es no mention of an one

#esides John the Baptist and Jes"s #ein! at the scene. 0rom these te*ts we come to 'now that 1eople were immersin! themsel&es in the presence of John the Baptist in the Jordan ri&er. 8nd John the Baptist had the f"nction of a witness, as in prosel te #aptism. A 8t his #aptism Jes"s e*perienced his call. God was ta'in! him into his ser&ice a"thorisin! him as the ina"!"rator of the time of sal&ation. 8ccordin! to Joachim Jeremias, Jes"s was so close to John #"t adopted a f"ndamentall different position from him.4 This pres"pposes that some e&ent opened a !"lf #etween the two men. This e&ent was Jes"s/ #aptism d"rin! which he e*perienced his call. In J"daism the impartin! of the +pirit means prophetic inspiration. 8ccordin! to Is A6:1, the +pirit was to #e !i&en to God/s elect, his ser&ant: Behold m ser&ant, whom I "phold, m chosen, in whom m so"l deli!htsB I ha&e p"t m +pirit "pon him, he will #rin! forth @"stice to the nations. Joachim Jeremias sa s: There is nothin! to e*cl"de the possi#ilit that the tho"!ht of this passa!e, as it is e*pressed in the proclamation, occ"rred to Jes"s and that from the time of the Baptism he was conscio"s of #ein! God/s ser&ant promised # Isaiah. 6

!. The "isciples of Jesus and the "isciples of John the Baptist

,i'e Jes"s, John the Baptist also had disciples who followed him. 8ndrew was first a disciple of John the Baptist. %e left John the Baptist to #ecome a disciple of Jes"s. 8ndrew #ro"!ht his #rother, +imon 1eter, to Jes"s. -atthew, also named ,e&i, held a !reat feast which the disciples of John the Baptist and Jes"s attended. Jes"s/ disciples were #apti3in! more people than John.s disciples. John.s disciples came to him with this concern.

+ome people as'ed Jes"s how it was that John.s disciples and the disciples of the 1harisees fasted whereas his disciples did not (-ar' 6:1C). 1eople percei&ed a distinct difference #etween Jes"s and John. )o do"#t some of John.s disciples did follow Jes"s. B"t man others contin"ed in their alle!iance to John witho"t e&er #ecomin! followers of Jes"s.

8fter John the Baptist was imprisoned # %erod, he sent his disciples to Jes"s with the ;"estion D8re o" the ?*pected Ene, or do we loo' for someone else< Jes"s responded with these enco"ra!in! words DGo and report to John what o" ha&e seen and heard: the #lind recei&e si!ht, the lame wal', the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised "p, and the poor ha&e the

!ospel preached to them.D (,' 5:66):hen John.s disciples learned of his death, the too' his #od and laid it in a tom#. Then the went and told Jes"s, who departed with his disciples to a deserted place.

Gaal ah $onfeld is of the opinion that The tr"e relationship #etween Jes"s and his associates, and the followers of John the Baptist, is diffic"lt to determine. Tho"!h the Gospel writers meant to con&e a spirit of friendship and m"t"al esteem, their attempts cannot hide sentiments of ri&alr which e*isted #etween the disciples in #oth !ro"ps. 5

". John the Baptist and the #ssenes

:as John the Baptist at some time a part of the F"mran comm"nit < It has lon! #een felt that John was at one time connected with the ?ssenes, #eca"se of his ascetic ha#its and his location near the chief settlement of the sect. Basin! on John/s ministr in the J"dean wilderness, the same re!ion where the F"mran comm"nit was, and the similarities of the practises and #eliefs which the F"mran comm"nit and John shared (?*amples: John/s water rit"al, his #elon!in!ness to a priestl the e&idence he was is not compellin!, #"t it is s"!!esti&e.C Joachim Jeremias is also o the opinion that the &er nearness of the place of #aptism to F"mran ma'es the ass"mption of relationship #etween the two a li'el one.7 $ommentin! on the relation #etween John the Baptist and the ?ssenes Gaal ah $onfeld has the followin!: Ef all the messianic mo&ements in 1alestine on the e&e of the rise of earl $hristianit , none is more directl rele&ant than the ?ssenic mo&ement on the one hand, ill"strated # the =ead +ea +crolls of F"mran, and the ministr of John the Baptist on the other. John, Gthe forer"nner/ as he is called in the )ew Testament, is considered # man scholars to ha&e #een an adherent of the ?ssenic mo&ement and its spirit"al disciplines 1H famil , his ascetical dietar tendencies and the eschatolo!ical orientation in his preachin!) Ben :itherin!ton 111 thin's that

#. Josephus on Jesus and John the Baptist

The &er fact a historian of the first cent"r mentions John the Baptist clearl indicates that he

was a &er important fi!"re of the time. Joseph"s depicts John the Baptist as ha&in! a powerf"l

infl"ence on the ma@orit of the people of his time. Joseph"s. description of John is more detailed than his acco"nt of Jes"s. Joseph"s spea's a#o"t Jes"s in one of the most remar'a#le passa!es in the Jewish Antiquities is the Testimoni"m 0la&ian"m: )ow there was a#o"t this time Jes"s, a wise man, if it #e lawf"l to call him a manB for he was a doer of wonderf"l wor's, a teacher of s"ch men as recei&e the tr"th with pleas"re. %e drew o&er to him #oth man of the Jews and man of the Gentiles. %e was ItheJ $hrist. 8nd when 1ilate, at the s"!!estion of the principal men amon!st "s, had condemned him to the cross, those that lo&ed him at the first did not forsa'e himB for he appeared to them ali&e a!ain the third da B as the di&ine prophets had foretold these and ten tho"sand other wonderf"l thin!s concernin! him. 8nd the tri#e of $hristians, so named from him, are not e*tinct at this da .16 The a"thenticit of this passa!e a#o"t Jes"s is hea&il disp"ted and man scholars are of the opinion this ma #e a later interpolation. Joseph"s/ testimon descri#in! John the Baptist and his mission is fo"nd in 8nti;"ities of the Jews KLIII $h.4 1ara 6 )ow, some of the Jews tho"!ht that the destr"ction of %erod.s arm came from God, and that &er @"stl , as a p"nishment of what he did a!ainst John, that was called the Baptist: for %erod slew him, who was a !ood man, and commanded the Jews to e*ercise &irt"e, #oth as to ri!hteo"sness towards one another, and piet towards God, and so to come to #aptismB for that the washin! Iwith waterJ wo"ld #e accepta#le to him, if the made "se of it, not in order to the p"ttin! awa Ior the remissionJ of some sins Ionl J, #"t for the p"rification of the #od B s"pposin! still that the so"l was thoro"!hl p"rified #eforehand # ri!hteo"sness. )ow when Iman J others came in crowds a#o"t him, for the were &er !reatl mo&ed Ior pleasedJ # hearin! his words, %erod, who feared lest the !reat infl"ence John had o&er the people mi!ht p"t it into his power and inclination to raise a re#ellion, (for the seemed read to do an thin! he sho"ld ad&ise,) tho"!ht it #est, # p"ttin! him to death, to pre&ent an mischief he mi!ht ca"se, and not #rin! himself into diffic"lties, # sparin! a man who mi!ht ma'e him repent of it when it wo"ld #e too late. 8ccordin!l he was sent a prisoner, o"t of %erod.s s"spicio"s temper, to -acher"s, the castle I #efore mentioned, and was there p"t to death. )ow the Jews had an opinion that the destr"ction of this arm was sent as a p"nishment "pon %erod, and a mar' of God.s displeas"re a!ainst him.12

The pict"re of John the Baptist presented in the Gospels does not e*actl correspond to the pict"re !i&en # Joseph"s. Joseph"s presents a different nat"re of John/s #aptism which was a p"rification of the #od , while the so"l was p"rified # ri!hteo"s #eha&io"r. The reason for his imprisonment and 'illin! # %erod 8ntipas is different in his narration. The te*t states that %erod 8ntipas had him imprisoned and 'illed fearin! a re#ellion a!ainst the r"ler imposed # the Momans which co"ld #e prod"ced # lar!e !atherin!s of crowds that John attracted. :e find no relation #etween Jes"s and John the Baptist in his acco"nt. +cholars find discrepancies in chronolo! of the e&ents with that which we find in the Gospels.

F. $as John the Baptist% #li&ah'

:as John the Baptist ?li@ah< No" ha&e the answer es in -t 11:12(1AB -t 15:16(12B -' 7:12 and no in Jn 1:61. Is there a contradiction re!ardin! the identit of John the Baptist in the Gospels< The stor of ?li@ah is related in 1 O 6 9in!s. %e was 3ealo"s for the ,EM=, indeed his name means DNahweh is m GodD and he defeated the false prophets of Baal and fo"!ht a!ainst idolatr . 8lone on -o"nt %ore#, ?li@ah met with God and then anointed the 'in!s of + ria and Israel # God.s command. ?li@ah created man miracles # the !race of God, as when he raised the widow.s son from death in 1 9in!s 15:15(6A. ?li@ah was ta'en "p ali&e to God in a whirlwind, preceded # a chariot of fire in 6 9in!s 6:11. Those who ;"estioned John so"!ht to 'now who he was. %e told them he was not the $hrist (Jn 1:6H). The as'ed, D8re o" ?li@ah<D, to which he said, DI am not.D (Jn 1:61). %ow can he sa that, when other &erses clearl identif him as the ?li@ah who wo"ld come< -alachi had foretold that D?li@ahD wo"ld come (-alachi A:4), and the )ew Testament applies this to John (-atthew 15:1H(12). It wo"ld appear that the representati&es of the 1harisees ;"estioned whether he was ?li@ah or not, the tho"!ht that ?li@ah was to literall ret"rn to the earth. %e denied #ein! ?li@ah come #ac' to earth, @"st as he denied #ein! the $hrist or the 1rophet (=e"teronom 1C:14). :hat did he confess of himself< That he was D...the &oice of one cr in! in the wilderness...D, spo'en of # Isaiah. That is, he was the one who wo"ld come in the spirit and power of ?li@ah, t"rnin! the people #ac' to the ,ord. This is one wa to "nderstand John/s response to the 1harisees.

The Jews mi!ht ha&e #een thin'in! that this ?li@ah(to(come wo"ld #e the Dreal li&eD ?li@ah of the #oo's of the 9in!s ph sicall ret"rnin! from hea&en. John ma #e den in! this Jewish e*pectation. ,eon -orris clarifies this contradiction as follows: The sol"tion to the diffic"lt is pro#a#l that there was a sense in which John was ?li@ah and a sense in which he was not. %e f"lfilled all the preliminar ministr that -alachi had foretold (cf. ,' 1:15), and th"s in a &er real sense Jes"s co"ld sa that he was ?li@ah. B"t the Jews remem#ered that ?li@ah had left the earth in a chariot of fire witho"t passin! thro"!h death (69in!s 6:11), and the e*pected that in d"e co"rse the identical fi!"re wo"ld reappear. John was not ?li@ah in this sense, and he had no option #"t to den that he was. 8nd, of co"rse we m"st #ear in mind the possi#ilit that John ma not ha&e 'nown that he was ?li@ah.1A

G. $hat is implied in Jesus( )uestion *$hy did you not belie+e in him',(-. //01/)
The conte*t here is the Jewish leaders ;"estionin! Jes"s/ a"thorit in -' 11: 65(22. 8nd the came a!ain to Jer"salem. 8nd as he was wal'in! in the temple, the chief priests and the scri#es and the elders came to him, and the said to him, DB what a"thorit are o" doin! these thin!s, or who !a&e o" this a"thorit to do them<D Jes"s said to them, DI will as' o" a ;"estionB answer me, and I will tell o" # what a"thorit I do these thin!s. :as the #aptism of John from hea&en or from men< 8nswer me.D 8nd the ar!"ed with one another, DIf we sa , P0rom hea&en,. he will sa , P:h then did o" not #elie&e him<. B"t shall we sa , P0rom men.<D (( The were afraid of the people, for all held that John was a real prophet. +o the answered Jes"s, D:e do not 'now.D 8nd Jes"s said to them, D)either will I tell o" # what a"thorit I do these thin!s.D Is Jes"s deli#eratel e&adin! !i&in! a direct and intelli!i#le answer # p"ttin! forward a co"nter ;"estion< The #i#lical scholars differ in their opinion concernin! this. 8nswerin! a ;"estion # another ;"estion was a common ra##inic c"stom. :illiam ,. ,ane commentin! on this ;"estion of Jes"s sa s, The alternati&e posed # Jes"s delimits the ;"estion and allows onl two possi#le concl"sions: from !od or from men. The co"nter ;"estion clearl implies that Jes"s/ a"thorit li'e that of the #aptism of John, is !ro"nded in a commission from God 14

In Joel -arc"s/ opinion Jes"s/ anticipated retort( :h did o" not #elie&e in him<(-' 11:21)( ma'es sense onl on the ass"mption that people 'new that John had in some wa s"pported Jes"s.16 This "nderstandin! is implied in 1a"l/s con&ersation which we read in the #oo' of 8cts: :hile 8pollos was at $orinth, 1a"l passed thro"!h the "pper co"ntr and came to ?phes"s. There he fo"nd some disciples. 8nd he said to them, D=id o" recei&e the %ol +pirit when o" #elie&ed<D 8nd the said, D)o, we ha&e ne&er e&en heard that there is a %ol +pirit.D 8nd he said, DInto what then were o" #apti3ed<D The said, DInto John.s #aptism.D 8nd 1a"l said, DJohn #apti3ed with the #aptism of repentance, tellin! the people to #elie&e in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jes"s.D En hearin! this, the were #apti3ed in the name of the ,ord Jes"s. (8cts 17:1(4) 0or B"ltmann -' 11:21 is a later addition to the pericope and the force Jes"s/ co"nter ;"estion on John/s a"thorit is that Jes"s, li'e John deri&es his a"thorit from hea&en.15 Joel -arc"s holds that this co"nter ;"estion implies a direct relationship #etween John and Jes"s rather than a parallel relationship of each with God. In -eier/s opinion this co"nter ;"estion of Jes"s implies his own contin"ation of John/s practice of #apti3in! and therefore acceptin! John/s #aptism means acceptin! Jes"s/ as well.1C $ritici3in! this position Joel -arc"s sa s that this ;"estion of Jes"s refers to John/s messa!e rather than his rit"al practice.17 %ere the ;"estion arises what is then the relation implied here #etween John the Baptist and Jes"s< %is answer is: It seems to me, therefore that the most co!ent interpretation of 11.21, the one that ma'e most sense of :h did o" not #elie&e in him< in its narrati&e conte*t, is that it is a reference to a !eneral #elief that John had ac'nowled!ed Jes"s as his s"ccessor, the stron!er one.6H 1 1CA B"t he adds that he did indeed affirm Jes"s/ ministr and e&en reco!nised Jes"s as s"perior, #"t he did not ac'nowled!e him as the -essiah.61 :hen did then John accept Jes"s as -essiah< Joel -arc"s stron!l #elie&es that @ohn the Baptist did indeed #elie&e in Jes"s earl on( #"t as the ?lisha to John/s ?li@ah rather than as messiah.66 If John tho"!ht of himself as ?li@ah then it ma'es sense that he mi!ht ha&e tho"!ht of Jes"s, his s"ccessor as ?lisha. 8ccordin! to Joel -arc"s, onl later, in prison John #e!in to wonder whether it mi!ht #e his destin to forer"n a fi!"re who was not @"st prophetic #"t also =a&idic. Joel -arc"s sa s mo&ed # some s"ch int"ition, @ohn sent messen!ers to Jes"s to pose a ;"estion that

artic"lated #oth his dawnin! hope and his remainin! do"#t : 8re o" the one who is to come or are we waitin! for another<62 Joel -arc"s/ interpretation of -' 11. 21 is appealin!. B"t I thin' Joachim Jeremias has a more reasona#le interpretation of -' 11: 65(22 when ta'en as a whole. %e sa s, Be that as it ma , it is clear that Jes"s attached s"preme importance to the moment of his #aptism. The p"33lin! and, # that to'en, earl periscope -ar' 11. 65(22 par. is e&idence of that. Jes"s is as'ed a#o"t the #asis of his a"thorit . %is co"nter(;"estion, whether the #aptism of John was or was not from God (&.2H) is hardl an e&asion, a mo&e # which Jes"s see's to a&oid a direct answer. )ow if his co"nter( ;"estion is meant serio"sl , it means: G- a"thorit rests on John/s #aptism/, and that a!ain will mean in concrete terms: G- a"thorit rests on what happened when I was #apti3ed # John/.6A p.44(

%. Jes"s and John the Baptist : $o"sins Mesem#lin! in -an Thin!s B"t %a&in! Basic =ifferences in Their Moles
0rom the Gospel acco"nts we come to 'now that John and Jes"s were co"sins and resem#led in man thin!s. Both were at home in the wilderness, the &en"e of e*traordinar temptation and trial and testin!, #"t also the &en"e of e*traordinar intimac with the 0ather. Both preached o"t(of( doors when the #e!an their p"#lic ministries. Both ta"!ht their disciples a characteristic pra er. Both s"mmoned people to repent. Both were #orn thro"!h an "ncommon act of God. 8nd #oth died thro"!h ha&in! pro&o'ed the a"thorities. John insisted that the sole p"rpose of his mission was to point to his o"n!er co"sin, Jes"s. Jes"s, for %is part, ne&er "ttered a ne!ati&e word a#o"t John. Jes"s e&en endorsed John.s ministr # s"#mittin! to #aptism at John.s hand. Indeed Jes"s said, D8mon! those #orn of women there is none !reater than John. Me!ardless of the famil resem#lance #etween John and Jes"s the are not identical. John came to #ear witness to the li!ht. Jes"s was that li!ht. John pointed to Jes"s as the comin! one. Jes"s pointed to himself as the Incarnate one. John reminded the people of God.s cent"ries(old promises. Jes"s was, and is, the fulfilment of all God.s promises. John administered a #aptism of water as an o"tward si!n of repentance. Jes"s administered a #aptism of fire as the +pirit inwardl torched his people. :ith this lattermost point we ha&e hi!hli!hted the cr"cial difference #etween John and Jes"s. John co"ld onl point to the 'in!dom of God, the all(determinin! realit that was to heal a creation disfi!"red # the fall. Jes"s, on the other hand, didn.t point to it: he brought it inasm"ch as

he himself was the new creation, fra"!ht with cosmic si!nificance, the one in whom all thin!s are restored. This difference #etween John and Jes"s which accordin! to +t. -athew felt # the people of the time who maintained that John was an ascetic and while Jes"s was open to the world. 0or John came neither eatin! nor drin'in!, and the sa , P%e has a demonB the +on of man came eatin! and drin'in!, and the sa , PBehold, a !l"tton and a dr"n'ard, a friend of ta* collectors and sinnersQ. Net wisdom is @"stified # her deeds.D (-t 11.1C(17). ?*plainin! the f"ndamental difference #etween #oth John the Baptist and Jes"s, Joachim Jeremias sa s, John proclaimed, GJ"d!ment is at hand, repentQ/. Jes"s proclaimed, GThe kingly reign of God is dawnin!B come o" who are tro"#led and o&er#"rdenedQ/ John the Baptist remains in the realm of expectationB Jes"s claims to #rin! fulfilment. John still #elon!s to the realm of the lawB with Jes"s the !ospel #e!ins. Therefore the smallest in the basilieia is !reater than John (-att. 11.11# par. ,"'e 5.6C#). 64 p.A7

I. 2elationship between Jesus and John the Baptist

:e 'now #oth from the Gospels and also from the writin!s of Joseph"s that John the Baptist was an apocal ptic preacher. That is, someone who was proclaimin! a messa!e of @"d!ment and iss"in! a call for repentance to his contemporaries, in the li!ht of what he predicted to #e the imminent inter&ention into h"man histor # God to @"d!e the !ood and the e&il. The !ospels then !o on to sa that Jes"s was the one predicted # John. +o one of the essential pro#lems is the acc"rac of that description of the relationship #etween the two. That is, John as the self(conscio"s and deli#erate forer"nner of Jes"s. -ost contemporar scholars wo"ld see that to #e a constr"ct de&eloped # the earl ch"rch to help e*plain the relationship #etween the two. Beca"se for the earl ch"rch it wo"ld ha&e #een somethin! of an em#arrassment to sa that Jes"s, who was in their minds s"perior to John the Baptist, had #een #apti3ed # him, and there# proclaimed some sort of s"#ordination to him, some sort of disciple relationship to him. The earl relationship #etween Jes"s and John the Baptist has lon! #een a topic of contro&ers . +ome sa that Jes"s #e!an his ministr as a disciple of John the Baptist. In an case It is a serio"s mista'e to "nderestimate the importance of John the Baptist when considerin! the rise of Jes"s/ mo&ement. 66 Ben :itherin!ton 111, )ew Testament %istor : 8 )arrati&e acco"nt (Ba'er 8cademic and 1aternoster press, Rnited 9in!dom, 6HH1) 77

Jes"s reco!nised the ministr of John the Baptist with almost e*tra&a!ant words. %is #aptism was from God (-' 11: 2H). *I tell o", amon! those #orn of women none is !reater than JohnB et he who is least in the 'in!dom of God is !reater than he (,' 5:6C). *0or John came to o" in the wa of ri!hteo"sness, and o" did not #elie&e him, #"t the ta* collectors and the harlots #elie&ed himB and e&en when o" saw it, o" did not afterward repent and #elie&e him.(-t 61:26). 8ccordin! to Joachim Jeremias these sa in!s are to #e considered a"thentic. This is the most astonishin! remar' that Jes"s made a#o"t @ohn the Baptist: he introd"ced the time of sal&ation. 8ll the sa in!s that #etra s"ch a hi!h estimate of the Baptist are certainl a"thentic. The earl ch"rch, which had to compete with comm"nities of the followers of John the Baptist, did not in&ent an thin! of his 'ind.65 1.A5 8ccordin! to Ben :itherin!ton, It is pro#a#l tr"e that the lar!el positi&e presentation of John in the Gospels is d"e to Jes"s/ own positi&e appreciation of John and his ministr .6C Ben :itherin!ton 111, )ew Testament %istor : 8 )arrati&e acco"nt (Ba'er 8cademic and 1aternoster press, Rnited 9in!dom, 6HH1) 77

!onclusion
1. It is interestin! to note that the 0o"rth Gospel differs considera#l in its presentation of John the Baptist and his relation to Jes"s, from that of the + noptics. 6. -a@orit of the scholars are of the opinion that there is no reason for do"#tin! the historicit of the Baptism of Jes"s # John the Baptist. 2. Tho"!h the Gospel writers meant to con&e a spirit of friendship and m"t"al esteem, their attempts cannot hide sentiments of ri&alr which e*isted #etween the disciples of John he Baptist and the disciples of Jes"s. A. The &er fact that 0la&i"s Joseh"s, a Jewish historian of the first cent"r mentions John the Baptist clearl indicates that he was a &er important fi!"re of the time. B"t we find no relation #etween him and Jes"s in his writin!s. -oreo&er man scholars are of the opinion the acco"nt concernin! Jes"s that we find in his #oo' is a later interpolation. 4. :as John the Baptist, ?li@ah< The Jews mi!ht ha&e #een thin'in! that this ?li@ah(to(come wo"ld #e the Dreal li&eD ?li@ah of the #oo's of the 9in!s ph sicall ret"rnin! from hea&en. John was not ?li@ah in this sense. :e m"st #ear in mind the possi#ilit that John ma not ha&e 'nown that he was ?li@ah. 6. :h did o" not #elie&e in him<(-' 11:21) This co"nter ;"estion of Jes"s, from the conte*t, ma'es sense onl on the ass"mption that people 'new that John had in some wa s"pported Jes"s. The a"thorit of Jes"s rests on what happened at his #aptism # John.

5. 0rom the !ospel acco"nts we come to 'now that John and Jes"s were co"sins and resem#led in man thin!s. B"t we can note also a f"ndamental difference #etween them: John the Baptist remains in the realm of expectationB Jes"s claims to #rin! fulfilment. C. It is diffic"lt to determine the earl relationship #etween Jes"s and John the Baptist acc"ratel as we ha&e less so"rces of information concernin! #oth of them. 7. Jes"s reco!nised the ministr of John the Baptist with almost e*tra&a!ant words and scholars consider these words of appreciation to #e a"thentic sa in!s of Jes"s.