When Herod learns about Jesus, he thinks this person may be John risen from the dead. This is curious for a couple of reasons. First, it shows that Jesus’ identity was not well known, at least among those with political power in the region. If Jesus were well known based upon his miracles and teachings, Herod’s misidentification should not have happened.
Second, and even stranger, is the fact that Herod’s failure to know who Jesus was must mean that John never told him. Now, if John really believed that he was paving the way for Jesus (as the gospel authors and Christian tradition dictate), then upon Jesus’ baptism John should have become a follower of Jesus, spreading Jesus’ message.
The above passages tell us that Herod “heard him gladly,” which suggests that they had conversations — probably on moral and religious matters, as it seems unlikely that they were just swapping recipes or that Herod was seeking political advice. In such a context, however, it is baffling that John wouldn’t have talked about Jesus, or indeed spent most of his time explaining how important Jesus was and what his message meant.
Here John was, himself a captive but at the same time given the ear of one of the most powerful men in the whole region. What a perfect opportunity to make a difference by having Herod learn more about Jesus! Apparently, though, he never brought the matter up and was simply killed. All of this suggests that John wasn’t a follower of Jesus and continued to maintain an independent ministry. That, in turn, is only likely to have happened if he didn’t see himself as paving the way for Jesus to appear.
Notice that at the end Mark speaks of John having “disciples,” further suggesting that John continued in his own ministry. In their case, however, when they laid their leader in a tomb he just stayed in it — there was no resurrection and there was no new religion founded.
Thus, while leaving behind hints that the traditional portrayal of John the Baptist isn’t entirely accurate, the gospel author also manages to contrast Jesus’ overcoming death with John’s failure to do the same (not having a head anymore may have played a role in that, though).
Why? Perhaps John still had followers those many years later when the gospels were being written — followers who, perhaps, could be swayed to convert to Christianity if it were emphasized that they were following a dead man who was going to stay dead.
It’s curious that this has been inserted in the middle of Mark’s narrative about Jesus — verse 6:30 seems to follow logically from 6:13. Why was this placed at this point in Mark’s gospel? Perhaps he wanted to explain the dangers inherent for those who would be prophets of God, immediately after the disciples are sent out to spread Jesus’ message. Such a story would have been significant for the Christian community during the earliest decades.
