From Austin Cline,
Your Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!

The opening of Mark’s gospel says more about John the Baptist than Jesus. John’s depiction is consistent with Jewish eschatological expectations: dressed and acting like Elijah, John prepares the way for the Messiah as well as the “last days.”

Judea can refer to different political regions depending on the era. Technically “Judea” is the Greco-Latin form of Judah, but the political region of Judea was never as large as the ancient region of Judah. In its most comprehensive sense it refers to all of Palestine. In this era, though, it refers to a small area around Jerusalem. This was one of three political regions ruled by Herod the Great and later divided among his sons: Judea, Galilee, and Samaria. Judea was ruled by Archelaus who was based in Jerusalem from 4 BCE until 6 CE. After him, the region was under the control of procurators appointed by Rome.

What does “Judea” mean here — is John the Baptist working in just a small region of Palestine, or is he working throughout the region? If he was working only in a small part of Palestine, then he was most active in an area different from where Jesus was most active (Galilee). Otherwise, they worked in similar areas at least some of the time. The immediate juxtaposition in the text of “Judea” and “Jerusalem” suggests that what is meant is the narrower meaning common to this era.

The existence of John the Baptist is disputed by some. The only extra-biblical mention of him is found in Josephus’ Antiquities and is arguably an interpolation — a later addition by someone else. Josephus describes a conflict between Herod and Aretas, father of Herod’s wife. Herod, defeated by Aretas, calls to his Roman masters for help and emperor Tiberius sends Vitellius of Syria. At this point the text shifts suddenly to a story about John the Baptist; afterwards we return to the main narrative and learn that Vitellius preparing to go to war against Aretas.

 

Baptism and the Forgiveness of Sins

Today baptism is associated with Jesus, but nowhere in the gospels is Jesus shown baptizing anyone. Here John is participating in what may have been a popular activity. Many scholars believe that John developed a following among Jews in the region, but why mention him here?

Mark may have needed to establish theological social continuity between John and Jesus. John was killed early on, but Jesus was nearby doing similar things and surely attracted some now-leaderless followers of John. Theological continuity is established by John preaching that someone greater would follow him; social continuity is established by John baptizing Jesus. The mantle of God’s messenger is thus passed from one to the other.

Some scholars think that Jesus could have been a follower of John who created his own religious movement. If true, it’s natural that Jesus’ followers would need to make theirs appear to be the more important of the two groups. There definitely appears to be such a concern in the gospels: Mark makes John still seem important, Matthew has John acknowledge Jesus’ superiority, and Luke ends up excluding John completely. Each succeeding text pushes John further and further into the background.

What would have happened if John had lived on instead of dying early? Perhaps there would have been more competition between the two sects of Judaism. Perhaps John’s followers would have become established as a major world religion and Jesus relegated to a historical footnote.

It is interesting that John promoted baptism “for the remission of sins.” John the Baptist was going around Judaea and forgiving people’s sins by baptizing them. Could he do that? Were baptisms performed by John, rather than by or in the name of Jesus, sufficient for the forgiveness of sins? According to orthodox Christianity, only the sacrifice and death of Jesus is enough to truly forgive people’s sins. So what happened to those baptized by John but who died before Jesus died (or just didn’t pay attention to him)?

Are they in hell? Did they go to hell at first but receive a special dispensation after Jesus’ death? Could they have gone right to heaven after dying (especially if they died shortly after their sins were forgiven)? That is a thorn in the side of orthodox Christianity because if baptism from John was sufficient to forgive sins, then Jesus’ death on the cross hardly seems necessary.

If it wasn’t sufficient, then John was leading people astray. This is not compatible with the orthodox depiction of John’s role as a messenger paving the way for Jesus. Perhaps he wasn’t actually forgiving sins himself. According to some, baptism was the first step in being forgiven — final forgiveness would not occur until the Day of Judgment.

At the very least John was challenging the power of the Temple priests. Jews’ sins were supposed to be forgiven at the Temple once they made the appropriate sacrifices. John, however, was going around and telling people that he, not the priests, had the means by which they could be forgiven.